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 talk:Ludwigs2 on Talk:Muhammad/images

Discussion

A little background: Talk:Muhammad/images is a special talk page created to deal with the large number of editors who come to complain about showing depictions of Muhammad on the Muhammad article, due mostly to religious considerations. Consensus has been decided on multiple occasions that images of Muhammad are acceptable on the page, this has been truly exhaustively discussed in the past as you can tell by the large disclaimer on the top of the talk page, and by reading the archives. This does not mean that consensus cannot change, but it's unlikely and doesn't seem to be happening now. Furthermore, WP:NOTCENSORED is unambiguous when it states "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." User talk:Ludwigs2 has made it goal recently to strip the article of images of Muhammad on the basis that it offends Muslims. It is true that some sects of Islam consider it unethical to depict Muhammad as I'm sure most people here know. It has been explained ad nauseum to Ludwig that policy does not allow us to consider religious beliefs when writing this encyclopedia and his response is that we should invoke WP:IAR. I explained to him that IAR still needs to be determined by a consensus and that he cannot unilaterally invoke it to force a POV into the article. His response was that other editors are abusing the rules by enforcing them and if we stop abusing the rules then he will stop IAR. This conversation has been going back and forth with the same points being explained by several editors many times, and it has now crossed the WP:TE line - the entire page is one large WP:BATTLEGROUND at this point, with several WP:IDHT, WP:NPA and WP:AGF issues such as accusing all the other editors opposing removal (which as far as I can tell is all other editors, though there are editors who would like less images for various reasons) of WP:OWN and expressing disbelief that the people he's dealing with can think the way they do and still be normal adults. I'm asking that an uninvolved admin assess the situation and determine if Lugwigs2 requires some kind of a warning or if I'm being overly dramatic, and I thank you in advance for reading the talk page thread because it is a bit long. The relevant thread is here. I'm not posting diffs because the entire thread demonstrates the points I am attempting to illustrate, as it's not a single comment that is at issue here. There are other threads involved in this discussion, but this is the most recent and best highlights my complaint. Noformation Talk 01:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This was bound to hit the AN/I fan sooner or later, just one massive Facepalm. If I may offer a pre-rebuttal to what Ludwigs2 is like about to touch on here, neither I nor IMO anyone else asserts ownership of the Muhammad article. I have said "images will not be removed this article" as a simple acknowledgement of the slim-to-none chance that it would ever actually happen. It's like saying "Ron Paul will never be President" or "the Bills will never win the Super Bowl". One is not staking out an aggressive posture against either scenario taking place, but is rather acknowledging the likelihood of occurrence, or lack thereof. It has also been endlessly frustrating to deal with a user who demands existing policy be bent in an absolutely wrong direction to accommodate someone's religious beliefs. And not even a specific someone, all of this is in defense of nebulous "some people out there don't like this article" sensibilities. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I have said similar and have elaborated in the same way. The article can certainly change if a consensus to do so is formed, but it will not be done based on religious considerations and the chances of the article being depiction free are slim. This is not asserting ownership. Noformation Talk 01:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) I believe the term you're looking for is "Slim to none, and Slim left town". - The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC) A very very tiny portion of the diffs of behavior related to this can be found here[1] (this was for an AN/I or RfC/U I planned on filing but am still working on organizing and moving the diffs over from an offline copy). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Just noting that I am aware of this thread, and to clarify some misperceptions in Nofo's presentation. beyond that I will allow administrtors to review the material before commenting further. comments on Nofo's summary: I am not trying to "strip the article of images of Muhammad on the basis that it offends Muslims." As I have said repeatedly on the talk page, I want to undertake a frank evaluation of the value of these images to the article to see if keeping them is worth all the immense amounts of trouble that they cause. as Nofo noted, there is a special subpage (with 16 archives) all focused on these images; one would expect the images to be of vital importance to the page for all of that conflict, yet as far as I can tell they are at best decorative illustrations. That struck me as nonsensical - why cause this much trouble over eye-candy? Nofo and Tarc have (understandably) downplayed the extent of wp:page ownership. I have had at least four editors (including one admin) tell me bald-face that the images will not be removed under any circumstances, and that any discussion of the matter is unacceptable (two most reacent examples [2],[3], though there are dozens) I have consequently been forced to turn to wp:IAR simply to get any sort of discussion going. The IAR justification, incidentally, is over the misuse of NOTCENSORED: the policy is being used to retain images that have no particular value to the article but are highly controversial - effectively offending a significant population of our readers and damaging the project's reputation without any overriding encyclopedic reason. please review the talk page at your leisure; happy to answer any questions. Hopefully this can be resolved without further drama on the page. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) P.s. this has been cast as being about me, but there are at least two other editors in the discussion making similar arguments to mine who have not been notified. I will leave notices in their talk (I don't want to involve them unless they choose to participate here). --Ludwigs2 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) That is so very not true, and I can provide faaaar more diffs to prove it's not than the tiny handful in the link I posted above. Shall I? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I very clearly said "without a consensus for your position, these images will not be removed" in that diff, I seriously doubt anyone will read that as ownership. Noformation Talk 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia editors insist on calling the Bible stories fairy tales, without concern for offense to Jewish and Christian believers. What's so special about Muslims, that they should be catered to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Fairy tales? In mainspace? Do we? --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Example? I rather think we tolerate highly biased articles making out that Jesus' existence is uncontested historical fact and stuff like that. Not that this supports Ludwigs2's case. --FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Bugs: when it comes right down to it, I don't really care who gets offended, so long as the project has a valid, encyclopedic reason to do the offending. If we need controversial material, we use controversial material, but do we really want to be throwing controversial material in our readers' faces for no reason whatsoever? see the recent foundation resolution on controversial content. --Ludwigs2 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Wow, at AN/I, you actually decided to make such a claim, even though diffs to prove your true motivations and feelings on this matter are right here for all to see? (to everyone else) This is why I think nothing short of a topic ban is going to stop the tendentiousness, disruptiveness and editing in bad faith (not to mention erroneous claims of being attacked while attacking others). In my opinion, that entire comment shows a bad faith response as can be noted from over a dozen diffs showing (in his own words) it is not his true motivations. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Considering that depictions of Muhammed are usually verboten, their mere presence is of major educational benefit here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC) That's a ridiculous argument, Bugs. Here's a gratuitous and excessive counterexample of something that is offensive but we have no educational mission to include. The concept that we should include offensive material just because no one else will host it is jaw-droppingly silly. SDY (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC) And that's a ridiculously, jaw-droppingly silly, and thoroughly bogus comparison. Unless you're aware of some American law restricting depictions of Muhammed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC) In other words, you think we should include kiddie porn if the laws of Florida didn't say no? Maybe we should include the goatse.cx image for its "educational value"? Including gratuitous offensive images is tasteless and crude: if they have clear educational value that should be easy to defend. Including them for the sake of some twisted sense of entitlement about freedom from censorship is not writing an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC) For quite some time we did include the goatse.cx image, first the image itself, and then a screenshot of the website with the image clearly visible. The arguments for the inclusion of that image were much better than those for the Muhammad images, and it didn't get finally removed before Jimbo got involved. Hans Adler 07:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC) If there's an alternate universe where kiddie porn isn't universally condemned as wrong and depraved, and is instead accepted, and if there's a wikipedia in that universe, they'd probably have kiddie porn in their article. The comparison is way too weak because of all the fundamentally unique issues that apply to child pornography that don't apply to almost anything else. Interestingly, I don't particularily think that a category exists whose members are "child porn, goatse.cx and the religious prophet Muhammad". Noformation Talk 03:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Images that might be taken as extremely offensive, perhaps? The complete cultural blindness of this site is shocking sometimes. We have very different ideas about encyclopedias. Regardless, this isn't the place for this conversation. SDY (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Re: "cultural blindess" - good thing too, if it weren't culturally blind, it would be a very shitty encyclopedia, especially with all the various interests that have tried subverting article after article. My time here at RC has proven that to me. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Comment. There's no way I'm reading through all the material here, major case of tl;dr, but I would suggest to Ludwig that his reasoning is dubious when he argues that a possibly valid reason to remove images from said article is simply because they are causing more trouble than they are worth, when it is he who is causing most of the trouble. I agree with the original poster that an uninvolved admin might perhaps need to have a chat with Ludwig and possibly issue a warning. This discussion has truly been done to death at a variety of locations on wikipedia, and I really think it's time for Ludwig to let this issue go. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 02:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I had a read through of the entire section myself to get to grips with the situation. Wrt to the point raised re ownership, I didn't see any particular signs of it. I read the various "these pictures will never be removed" comments as "these pictures will never be removed based on the position you are taking". Frankly speaking, all I read was the same argument repeated over and over again until it was escalated into heel digging and declarations of applying IAR ad nauseam until the pictures were removed for the sake of the sensibilities of religious hysterics. --Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I cannot believe this was brought here. Ludwigs2 is not just repeating the same arguments over and over again. The most recent round of discussion was kicked off by the resolution recently passed by the WMF on controversial content. Raising the issue here on Wikipedia with what are very easily our most "controversial images" was fully acceptable. In response, Ludwigs has been met with abuse and vitriol. Ludwigs eventually decided to pursue an RfC (supported by myself, Anthonyhcole, and others); a number of regular editors (Tarc is the worst, but also Robertmfromli) have made strong attempts to stop the RfC. When a group of editors attempt to assert that their understanding of policy is so obviously correct and their opponents are so obviously wrong that we shouldn't even ask for the community's input, that is the very definition of ownership. Now, I will admit that Ludwigs2 is on the extreme end, and the chances of his preferred outcome (i.e., no pictorial images whatsoever) is essentially a no-go, but Anthonyhcole has done a very good job of pointing out that there is a middle ground here that needs to be considered (i.e., that by including so many images from a very narrow time period and fairly narrow interpretation of Islam we are in fact violating WP:UNDUE). WP:CENSORSHIP is fine, but it is being used as a bludgeon on that page, as if its very existence means that anyone who even considers removal of any images there is nothing other than a Sunni apologist. My opinion is, once we settle on a wording, we need to let the RfC run. If it turns out (as is likely) to support the extremist "all images are good position", then fine--of course, Ludwigs2 and any other editor must be free to pursue further dispute resolution. That has really been my position all along: that a group of editors are essentially trying to prevent dispute resolution due to their sense of their own unerring interpretation of policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Qwyrxian: Me? I tried stopping the RfC? Are you truly serious? I kindly ask you to review the page history. I was willing to give up[4][5] because of Ludwigs2's actions, but I *NEVER* tried stopping it. The exact opposite is true. *I* restarted it THREE times[6][7][8] and *I* made the only proposal that had any chance at getting any images removed (other than you tacking virtually the same proposal onto proposal #5). So, would you like to retract that claim that I tried stopping the RfC? And apologies for the bolded text, but your claim is so vastly different than what really happened. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Qwyrxian: Apologies for any tone you may read into that. That page is a massive mess, and I am sure you simply missed the things I pointed out above. I am upset about such a claim being made against me, but I know (from seeing you around for a long time) that it's nothing more than not having gotten a handle on that massive walls-o-text talk page. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This AN/I is about Ludwig's behavior, not the content discussion. There may be a middle ground and that's fine but in the meantime Ludwig has made personal attacks, assigned motives to other editors and yes, has repeated the same argument regarding offending Muslims over and over again to the point of WP:TE. He is yet to make a policy based argument against WP:NOTCENSORED, which specifically rules out using religious belief as a valid criteria of building the pedia. Instead he invokes IAR, which he would not need to do if policy was on his side. Yes there have been edits by editors who share my view on the images that made me cringe, I didn't find their behavior bad enough to take to AN/I, but if you do then by all means open up a case. However, in what you wrote above all you did was point to the behavior of others and not that of Ludwigs. Please see some of the diffs below. Noformation Talk 04:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Just to add to this, I have absolutely no problem with an RFC nor do I oppose changes to the way images in the article are handled, and I don't think other editors do either. The problem people have is that we cannot make a case based on Ludwig's reasoning that it offends religious beliefs. Other arguments are fine. I brought this thread here so that an uninvolved admin can step in and calm the waters - not to stifle discussion or stop DR. Noformation Talk 04:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I find Ludwigs2's arguments quite sensible, and am more inclined to the view that there are a number of editors opposing Ludwigs2 who are overinvolved on that page, and who are turning this into a battleground over principle. I am still trying to get up to speed with the subject matter, but as far as I can make out, pictorial representations of Muhammad have never been as common and widespread in Muslim traditions as pictorial representations of Christ in the Christian tradition, for example; so the basic situation is a completely different one. We should focus on the most common types of representation (calligraphy etc.), just as we focus on the most typical depictions of Jesus in his article. Even among such pictorial depictions of Muhammad as did exist, the majority showed him as a flame, or veiled; yet most of the pictures we feature are those of the rarer naturalistic type – so they are both unrepresentative and more likely to cause offence. If we keep in mind that we should balance educational value and potential offence, the only reasonable conclusion is that we have far too many naturalistic images of Muhammad in the article. Perhaps one veiled one, and one showing him as a flame, might be reasonable, because these are the common styles. It might also make sense to look at how other encyclopaedias are handling this; Britannica for example does not include any images of Muhammad at all, as far as I can see; neither in the Micropaedia and Macropaedia articles on Muhammad, nor in the Macropaedia article on Islamic art (which is mostly non-pictorial). We'll probably need an RfC on the content issue at some point, and that should be well-prepared, and underpinned by serious research. --JN466 05:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC) There are many arguments to be made on the article's talk page, but one of them is not that it's against Islamic tradition. And again, this is about Ludwig's behavior, not the content dispute. Noformation Talk 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Well, as someone who has only happened on this page this past week, I see lots of "I didn't hear that" and aspersions from the other side as well, rather than an effort to seek compromise and consensus. I think everybody on that page needs a cooling-off period. (By the way, note WP:NAUSEUM.) And to address the point of tradition, I think we can agree that naturalistic depictions of Muhammad are rare, and nowhere near representative of how Muhammad is represented in Islamic tradition. --JN466 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC) A small portion of Ludwigs2 behavior and comments Engages community in attempt to remove images based on Foundation resolution[9] Very next post, claims (in edit summary) "the astonishment is general, not a function or religion"[10] yet the only known objection is religious beliefs. One justification repeatedly trumped out is "[...]and since none of the images of the prophet presented on the page are factual[...]"[11] (one of many diffs) - yet refuses to believe that such would apply to pictures of Euro-Jesus - while admitting it is because people aren't (religiously) offended by such.[12] thus indicating (again and again) the real issue is one of religious offense and not whether the images are "factual". Earlier admits his motivations are religious in nature[13] - continues to do so, such as[14] VERY early on, starts accusing those who he disagrees with of having a prejudicial tone[15] - they cite policy and it's uniform use, he calls their tone "prejudicial" He suggests an RfC[16], which gets given actual attention and yet two days later tries end runs around an RfC that obviously won't remove every image of Muhammad by attempting to remove one editor using WQA[17], and an attempted an end run at ArbCom hinting at our behavior (with diffs) while claiming that isn't part of it[18] (diff to final post on proposed ArbCom case so entire thread can be viewed). During this ArbCom end run attempt, he tries pointing out a "deep ideological divide in the community" by pointing out a Village Pump proposal that shows the exact opposite.[19] (Also) DURING the attempt to formulate an RfC to address such concerns, those with opposing viewpoints and vastly different understanding of policy than him are labeled (by him) as showing or having a bias, not AGF, incivility, anti-Muslim sentiments, personal attacks (against him), etc,[20][21][22] Advises he will continue[23] to bring up what amounts to policy changes in the wrong venue. Advised he should go to the right venue[24]. Obviously refuses by actions (see talk page) and again repeats (after being told by multiple editors that it's getting tendentious (and disruptive))[25][26][27](and plenty more) that he will continue to do so anyway, even after acknowledging the correct venue (and even responding with "tenacious" once in response to claims of his "tendentious"ness) [28][29] Added by ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC) We need to limit this discussion to Ludwigs2's behavior. We *really* don't want to hash out the image controversy here as it's one that will never achieve consensus anyway. Rklawton (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) It achieved consensus long ago (that a few images stay) and has had it ever since. What it will never achieve is universal agreement, but that's not the same thing. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Agreed, I was just about to post the same thing. Noformation Talk 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Agreed as well, but in fairness to Ludwigs, we need to limit it to everyone's behaviour, even if I echo others in believing that he himself is responsible for nearly all of the conflict. Now, onto the point, I won't repeat everything RobertM has said, but I have a collection of links myself that echos those. The one I will leave is typical of his behaviour on that talk page: "...the extravagant effort I see dumped into defending these trivial images is only explainable by deep-seated anti-Islamic prejudice." This was from last weekend, but he has made several similar accusations of bigotry and racism, the most recent of which I saw was from yesterday. That is pretty much his MO. We need to remove images of "the prophet" because some Muslims are offended, and therefore anyone who does not support his goal of censoring the article must be a bigot. He has been tendentious in the extreme and routinely makes bad-faith arguments against his opponents. Resolute 03:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Cannot but agree that Ludwigs has been speculating on the motives of editors at that page and he should stop. Ludwigs2 is by no means the only offender. I would very much appreciate it if all the editors on that page would apply WP:TALK. It is extremely tedious trying to engage in rational argument when every fifth paragraph seems to be about editor behaviour or speculations about motive, from every direction. It draws out the process and just makes people dig in their heels. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I agree. The whole recent discussion on that page seems to have degenerated into battleground mode. I would not want to lay the responsibility for that at any one individual editor's doorstep. --JN466 05:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I believe we are on our 5th attempt at an RfC (which ironically he proposed and tried to circumvent). I even proposed an RfC that actually had a chance of getting an image or three removed (the "all or none" ones we know wouldn't change anything, and Ludwigs' written or implied as "none or none" ones weren't going to happen). If that's not a compromise, I don't know what is. Worse yet, there isn't anything else that can be compromised on in that venue. The rest require policy changes or policy addendums - where, on well over a dozen occasions, Ludwigs2 was suggested to go. We can't change nor ignore WP:CENSOR. At least 4 times, a viable compromise in the form of an RfC that may have removed some images was proposed. And finally, the rest of us don't really need to cool off. We just don't need tendentiousness and every RfC attempt turned into a circus of repeated IAR claims and repeated claims of (grossly paraphrased) "ooh, you attacked me again!" I disagree with various of your points, yet you and I are going back and forth in good faith with points and counter-points and listening to each other. Same with other editors. Yes, it's been difficult for us to ignore Ludwigs2, and I think all of us have tried, and most of us have failed... but ignoring him doesn't work either. And I've got pages of history in the talk page archives - plus the current page - to prove that. Simply responding to each other (as you and I have been doing) results in walls of the "Policy Whack A Mole" game, accusations towards other editors, single purpose IAR rants, and so on. I'll gladly do no more than provide a link to the Village Pump each time from now on, so the rest of us can discuss... but, at this point, the number of accusations and attacks on editors from him has gotten ridiculous, as has the tendentiousness and disruptiveness. I personally think he's long overdue for a topic ban. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Rob, this is a complex issue. It will take time for calm rational discussion to arrive at an idea of the best way forward, if indeed anything needs to be done. There is no hurry. The only problem I see at that page is a tendency for many editors, of every persuasion, to allow themselves to be sidetracked into ad hominem. You can ignore ad hominem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Anthony, you are correct. And my apologies, if my frustrations at others ever got misplaced and misdirected at you or anyone else. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) My OPINION: Summary of this whole event This was intended to be part of the AN/I I held off filing and was to go with the diffs I provided above and below. It has been modified to note the two locations of the diffs, as I never finished moving them from off-Wiki to my userspace) (diffs representative of most or all of this are already posted here) When it comes to removal of the images, whether one or all or something inbetween, there are two camps involved: One camp which wishes to discuss the merit (historic, educational and artistic value to the article) of each image (or the images as a whole). One editor (Ludwigs2) who wishes to see them all removed based on religious objections to them. It seems that if those in "Camp #1" make what he perceives are compelling arguments, he tries that road for a short period of time. Everyone else starts discussing such with them in good faith, but as soon as it looks like there is pressure against any part of any such proposal, he tends to revert to various policy Whack A Mole type arguments based on religious objections to the images for summary removal of all of them, including suggesting an RfC that asked or implied (paraphrased) "remove all for this reason, or remove all for this reason". It is at that point where things continue to spiral out of control. Multiple attempts have been made to restart discussions, but the end result is always the same. I can provide diffs to various such conversations where those at odds with Ludwigs2's actions were working in good faith with those in "Camp #1" - and where he sidetracked things for his single minded objective. Due to his preliminary support of some of these (before he reverts to his true objective), a person only giving the page a quick read may come to a grossly wrong conclusion about his objectives as he himself (diff below in response to Anthony, many more available) had admitted is his goal. This is just my perceptions of the matter, with diffs in the section above I created, as well as below to support my interpretation. Your's may vary (or not). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 08:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) My take on this whole thing is that Ludwigs2 wants a clear interpretation of the ArbCom resolution reflected in Wikipedia's existing policies. As a precisionist Wikipedian myself, this is something I agree with. The problem is that Ludwigs2 picked the wrong venue, perhaps to use as a test case, but nevertheless it's the wrong place to build a consensus regarding fundamental interpretations of policy. At this point, after the same arguments have been stated over and over again, I would agree that Ludwigs2's persistence in the wrong venue has crossed the line into tendentiousness. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I took the fact that the resolution was already incorporated into WP:CENSOR with the religious censorship section left intact as the community's interpretation. I'd gladly see through such an endeavor for clarity, if you believe such is really needed. On the other side of the coin though, Ludwigs2 (I have the diffs, and can provide them later if you would like) started out at that article by removing images, caused drawn out debates about removing images, tried policy Whack-A-Mole to remove images, tried RfC attempts to remove images, tried a Village Pump proposal to remove images (was that one another end run attempt at an ongoing RfC?), and when pushed, repeatedly admits it's religious based objections at the core of his argument - hence my interpretation of his motives is different. Even with the very very unamibguous wording that was left in WP:CENSOR, it seemed more Policy-Whack-A-Mole time again. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) After re-reading much of the discussion (there's a good chunk of my life I'll sadly never get back), I have to concur with RobertMfromLI's summary--Ludwigs2 does keep reverting back to the same argument over and over. If Ludwigs2 wants to use that argument in the upcoming RfC, that is fine; however, there's no point in continuing to bring it up over and over again when xe knows that the current local consensus is opposed to that position. Right now, Ludwigs2 should be focused only on helping phrase the RfC itself, then xe can add whatever additional points xe wants to it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Quick question (sorry it is my first AN/I) should we continue to report any behavioral problems or should we let the matter lie while people look things up? Since I have noticed several times since we started this that personal attacks are continuing. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Topic Ban Proposal Topic ban? Ludwigs2 seems to be behaving no differently on this article than he has on astrology, pregnancy and acupuncture. (On Men's rights, it seems that his presence provides a useful counterfoil to some of the newly arrived editor-activists.) Almost all his contributions to the discussion on the image subpage appear to be outside wikipedia policy; and he still has not succeeded in finding a way to engage with other users who do not share his opinions, without causing offense. In this case, he has been shifting between several different lines of argument in a way which makes it very hard to see whether he has any coherent objections beyond WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. My suggestion is that, since he seems intent on producing more heat than light and at the same time causing offense, his presence on that talk page is purely disruptive and not a net positive for the project. Perhaps the best way foward is for Ludwigs2 to be topic banned from all discussions of images on wikipedia for a preliminary period of six months. (On astrology, he was topic-banned for six months.) Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Sadly, Support VERY VERY STRONG SUPPORT I tried avoiding going to this forum for quite some time (hence I never even finished adding diffs to the report I started in my userspace), but I think we are at the point this is the only viable option. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) After a bad faith RfC just created today,[30] I am now inclined to change my "Sadly, Support" to "VERY STRONG SUPPORT" - as pointed out by another editor, the RfC is biased to the point it is worded similar to "When did you stop beating your wife?" This needs to stop. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Ludwigs2 is needed to balance the POV of that article. It is striking how the illustrations of our article on Jesus are fully consistent with and celebratory of Christian tradition, while the illustrations in our article on Muhammad are not only inconsistent with Islamic tradition, but actually offensive to many muslim readers. That should give anyone just a moment's pause for thought about the neutrality that this project aspires to, and the extent to which we have achieved that lofty aim. --JN466 06:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) As a brief aside, I've paused for a moment, and come to the conclusion that we're not necessarily hearing from a representative portion of the Muslim community, since we tend not to hear from Muslims who actually like the images there; kind of a "planes that crash" problem. I won't try to bring the discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images here, but to briefly state; I know many Muslims personally who feel it's a personal choice whether or not to be offended by pictures of Muhammad, and that a secular encyclopedia should show depictions of him because that will lend itself to better understanding of the subject. To the topic at hand here, I'm not making a decision on whether I want to see an editor topic banned at 3 in the morning, so I'll weigh in later on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Blade, the point is that we should pick typical, traditional representations of Muhammad, that a muslim would recognise as typical representations, just as we do in the article on Jesus. We simply don't do that. Ludwigs2 is aware of that, but he is being stonewalled, and unreasonably so. --JN466 07:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Jayden, Ludwig wants to remove all images of Muhammad because some Muslims find them offensive. He doesn't want some, or one, he wants none. I don't think a single other editor is opposed to removing or changes images in general, it's just that we're not willing to have no images. Noformation Talk 07:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Actually, Ludwigs has repeatedly stated his true intent is to get all the images removed - that is why various of us are working in good faith with those discussing what you are talking about above - they don't want summary removal. Big difference. Does he make a few good points? Yes, and I've given him credit for them. But he then returns each conversation to efforts to simply summarily remove all images. Would you like diffs? If so, how many? Five? A dozen? That page is a convoluted mess, but you'll see (if you spend an hour or four reading it) that the rest of us are discussing every such issue in good faith, whether for or against the images. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Actually, he has signed up to this No one would object to pictures of Muhammad illustrating Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad (if it ever gets written) No one objects to pictures of Muhammad illustrating Depictions of Muhammad We believe the artists' impressions of historical events in this article have no educational value for the topic of this article - or, if they do, not enough to justify the space they take up. so he's happy to have images that add real educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry, Anthony, that is not a true representation of events. He himself admits "as I have said several times, I currently believe all images should be removed"[31] - but then follows that with "but I'm open minded[...]". Though he proposes things to be discussed that have some merit, he keeps returning the conversation to one of removing ALL images (how many diffs would you like?) - and then admits he will continue to push the issue until it happens (buncha diffs above). That's editing in bad faith. One cannot say they are open minded (and even get off to a good start on some topics) then try to turn it back to that singular motivation. That is what numerous of us are upset about. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 08:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I think he agrees with me and many others that none of the images of Muhammad presently adorning the article are appropriate, due to their lack of relevant educational value, so they should all go, but is OK with images of Muhammad in a (yet-to-be-created) section on images of Muhammad. That's my reading. I know you and others read his position differently. I've been assuming you're misunderstanding his position. Time will tell. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC) No Anthony, here is his reasons: religious offense[32], religious offense[33], religious offense[34], religious offense[35]... (pretend I posted about 10 more - or I simply can if you like). Every time he is pushed for justifications, he reverts to the religious offense argument - with a massive dab of WP:IAR thrown on top to ignore WP:CENSOR's section on religious beliefs. You've had to have seen those arguments. That is when things fall apart again. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 08:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oh yes. He believes since they're offensive to many readers, we should withhold our usual tolerance for educationally valueless images in this case. We tolerate images that breach WP:IUP like that on articles like Jesus because they're pretty, but, if I understand him correctly, he argues that images that add nothing to the readers' understanding and offend many people should go. But he's open to using images of Muhammad where they have some didactic purpose. It's not contradictory to argue against gratuitous offensiveness but go along with offensiveness when it's the inevitable byproduct of a greater good. The doctrine of double effect applies here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This is not really the place to discuss content. The concern here is about conduct. An ArbCom case on images, proposed by Ludwigs2, was recently rejected by arbitrators. Ludwigs2 does not appear to have dropped the idea. [36][37] [38] Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) It was rejected as a content rather than conduct issue, but I recall that several arbitrators went out of their way to state that a wider community discussion about the general topic of controversial content was necessary. --JN466 07:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (correct venue) Suggested and ignored numerous times. Some of the diffs above, 10-15 more if you like. I'd even help with it. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose I haven't followed Ludwigs' behaviour at Astrology so can't speak to that. We are in different camps on Acupuncture, and his argument there could be better focused, but we certainly don't need to be protected from him there. At Pregnancy, he is arguing for a view that, the last time I looked, was in the ascendancy. At Muhammad, his behaviour would be fine if he could just learn to not speculate about others' motives or respond to ad hominem. You're right, Mathsci, he does have several lines of argument, and one of them is that we should not use controversial images in an article when (a) they have little real educational value or (b) an uncontroversial picture would do just as well. I agree with this line, and believe that (a) applies in this case, but believe it represents a novel position, and is something that should win community approval elsewhere before it can sway a content decision. But he also argues that the images lack educational value, and so violate WP:IUP, and, on various grounds, that they violate WP:DUE. On these last two points of policy, there are many others, including me, who agree with him. His failure to observe WP:TALK has been well and truly matched by many others who oppose him on that page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC) If uninvolved editors who have reviewed the WP:NOT RfC and recent threads at Talk:Muhammad/images decide on sanctions for all parties involved in ad hominem discussion, I'll change my vote. Banning only one editor in this situation would be highly unbalanced. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Support with reservation Outside of controversial pages Ludwigs is a great contributor, but he doesn't play nice with others and cannot accept when consensus is not in his favor. He acted this way on Astrology and was topic banned for six months so I don't know why it would be any different here. But long term what's the solution? Drama seems to follow him where he goes and simply topic banning every time he gets to this point is inefficient. Perhaps a third solution, such as mentorship, would be beneficial here. I don't want him topic banned, I just want him to accept that policy as written is not in his favor and to stop acting as though IAR will function without consensus, but if he is unwilling to stop then I reluctantly support he be topic banned from the Muhammad article in regards to images. I've seen other instances of him invoking IAR when consensus and interpretation of policy didn't agree with him and frankly it's annoying and unproductive. Honestly I jumped the gun in supporting a topic ban. Ludwigs' is a good editor and generally makes great contributes and it's not fair for me to condemn him so strongly. I think think admin intervention is necessary but this goes too far for the time being. Noformation Talk 06:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (to Noformation) Eh, it's only a topic ban (not a site ban). He can continue to be a great editor elsewhere. It's preventative (not punitive) in order to end the disruption to what are probably attempts at good faith proposals to review the images (and their value) one more time. I'm not sure what other administrator intervention is possible other than a topic ban? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I just think it goes too far. If this AN/I was focused on behavior and not on content then I think Ludwigs behavior would have been more strongly rebuked and that he would back off from the WP:BATTLEGROUND and be willing to adjust. Unfortunately all the content is distracting from the issue. When I filed the report I made the mistake of asking people to read over the thread rather than providing diffs of specific NPA, AGF, etc, violations, which had the effect of getting people to take sides in the debate. I'm not sure where to go from here tbch. Noformation Talk 19:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I don't particularly want to see a topic ban either, if it can be avoided (which is why I started and never completed my filing). But, perhaps like you, I cannot think of any remedy other than one. And rebukes don't seem to work well - I'm dealing with such an issue on two other articles, and multiple admins have stopped in with rebukes which end things for a few hours to maybe a day - then edit/revert warring begins anew. I think each article has passed six such edit/revert wars. Until it's made abundantly clear that such rebukes are serious by stopping one dead in its tracks with a temporary block, they are going to continue. I suspect the same will happen here. One of those editors (in my other "situation") is also involved in this article, btw. Though admirably not engaging in such behavior on it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I imagine this will take a couple days to settle out and when it does I reserve the right to change back to support. I'm hoping that now that uninvolved editors are weighing in that it will be a bit of a wake up call. We'll see if anything changes on the talk page. Noformation Talk 22:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Ludwigs2 has done the right thing on that page, and has been behaving far better than most of his opponents. While Noformation's behaviour on the page is definitely not the worst, it's bad enough (especially the ridiculous interpretation of boiler-plate language in WP:CENSOR as a strict rule that we may not ever consider religious offence internally for editorial decisions except to prevent legal action against Wikipedia), and it's mind-boggling that this editor has the extremely poor sense of reporting Ludwigs2. Hans Adler 08:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Watch where you point your finger. I have done my very best to be civil and follow talk page guidelines. If I have done something outside of policy please provide a diff or don't label me as "not the worst." NOTCENSORED is unambiguous in regards to religious considerations, it clearly states that Wikipedia is not part of any religious groups and thus we do not follow their customs - that's about as boiler plate as it gets. Noformation Talk 08:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This is an absurd misreading of WP:CENSOR, and it can only be explained with your desire to insult or a severe reading comprehension problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground for fighting your cultural war against Islam, or religion in general, or whatever it is. Hans Adler 09:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Please provide a diff where it's demonstrated that I was uncivil or violated any policy. You have painted my conduct in a negative light, so back it up or strike your comments please. You are now ascribing motives to me when you have zero idea what I believe about Islam. I have done nothing to deserve such accusation aside from disagree with you. Expressing my interpretation of policy and my take on an issue is not a behavioral issue and is not against any policy. And again, not considering religious belief is not the same as deliberately insulting religion. All gay people offend a portion of Christians by virtue of being gay, that does not mean that they are obligated to hide their sexuality. In the same way, we are not obligated to consider people's personal beliefs and that is why not censored specifically says "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." and "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." Noformation Talk 09:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Hans Adler's statements seem to be at odds with the history of Islamic art, as presented for example on the website of the Islamic collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Even in Vienna, Hans Adler had the opportunity to see the al-Sabah collection from Kuwait in the Kunsthistorisches Museum this year including a page from the manuscript of Nizami’s “Khamsa” depicting the Prophet Mohammed’s night journey to Jerusalem.[39] Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the that. I have found it odd that this has become such an issue when there hasn't exactly been a huge backlash against WP by the Muslim community - to me it seems like a solution in search of a problem. Personal experience wise, about half of my dad's side of the family is Muslim (the other half Hindu) and this subject never came up for me when I was growing up. I know the edict exists, but as far as I know it is not in the holy book, but it's rather a modern movement. In my personal opinion, I think that people in the mideast who flipped out about this a few years ago wrt the Danish cartoons were manipulated into doing so for political reasons. I also find that people in the west tend to misunderstand life in the East - I guarantee that this is a bigger deal to people on this talk page than it is to the majority of Muslims in my fatherland, but I suppose it's anecdotal and I could be wrong. Noformation Talk 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Filling a page with undue weight images just because some Muslims are offended by them and you know you can get away with it is the really offensive thing here. This is what angers even the most liberal Muslims, who would not normally mind naturalistic depictions of Muhammad. In fact, it angers even me as an atheist living in a traditionally Christian country with many (mostly liberal) Muslims. It's absolutely despicable behaviour. Hans Adler 12:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC) So now I'm not only anti-islamic but I also am the one who filled the page with images. Please provide diffs of me adding images to the article and please provide diffs substantiating your previous characterization of me as an editor - any WP:TALK, WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL diff will do. Never have I expressed a desire to offend anyone, I have only said that religious considerations should not be relevant, this is not the same thing and not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. Please stop attributing motives to me and strike your comments - you clearly do not have the diffs to back them up otherwise you would have posted them already. Your credibility goes down the drain when you make claims you cannot back and when you're unwilling to correct incorrect statements. Noformation Talk 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Fully agree with Noformation. He's done nothing to warrant such claims. And I can provide over 4 dozen more diffs to show Ludwigs2's behavior that you think is "the right thing". Yes, I know you think my behavior is the worst (or is it Tarc's? someone else? who won?), but again.... dozens of diffs. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 08:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I haven't decided between you, Tarc and Kww. Hans Adler 09:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Hans, at no time has my behaviour been inappropriate or problematic. We disagree on things, but that doesn't provide reason for you to disparage my behaviour (or to refer to me as unethical and autistic, either). I don't bring up WP:NPA often, but you are getting there.—Kww(talk) 11:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Your massive IDHT behaviour and refusal to accept that there is a valid dispute has certainly been very inappropriate and problematic. Not sure if or when I referred to you personally as autistic, although there have been situations in this dispute where autism spectrum conditions are the only remaining explanation of an editor's behaviour that is compatible with good faith. Hans Adler 12:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Hans, you're as bad as he is with this repetitive IDHT quoting. I hear you both just fine, I just disagree. Strongly. The established consensus is that images of Mohammad are of encyclopedic value to the article, and that religious concerns cannot be taken into account when deciding to remove or retain images. Sooner or later, those who agitate for change again and again in the face of considerable opposition wind up like this. Ludwigs is heading down into ChildOfMidnight/Grundle2600 territory. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I hear you, Hans. You believe that religious sensitivities should be taken into account in our editorial decisions. You are wrong, and no amount of listening to you will make you right. That doesn't mean that I don't hear you, it simply means that I believe that you are fundamentally and unalterably wrong. I assume that you can accept that someone can in good faith believe that you are wrong.—Kww(talk) 13:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Can I suggest that we, those of us involved on Muhammad, stop adding to this thread for a while. If we want uninvolved editors to offer their advice about this situation, the least we can do is cut down the amount of tangental reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support topic ban. A cursory glance at the scores or hundreds of posts by Ludwig on the image talk page indicates obsession with maintaining a minority position based upon IDONTLIKEITSOIGNOREALLRULES. This is a secular encyclopedia and we should not set the precedent of putting content into a fundamentalist religious straightjacket, as the majority have consistently argued. ArbCom has refused to hear the debate as a content dispute and at this point the disruption needs to be terminated. Ludwig on his User Talk page indicates he sees a ban as inevitable and thinks it's some sort of game. [It's on some other User talk page, factually correct but sourced wrong, nevermind.] Time to end the distraction with a rapid topic ban. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support, as there comes a time when you gotta stop beating the dead horse. PS- This goes for all the editors who continue this 'delete images' campaign. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support topic ban from Muhammad and and all Islam-related image discussions. I see no alternative. The user keeps advocating a position incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia. We're not talking about removing some gory or porn-y pics here. He advocates removal of all human-like images Muhammad and replacing them with a flame [40]. (Note the bold font and all caps in the post, plus self-admittance that he's saying the same thing for about the 30th time.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support - If Ludwigs is never going to drop the stick (and I don't see any sign that he is), someone will have to take it away from him. His continuous declarations of the majority view as invalid or not reasonably argued by his personal standard are hallmarks of the most disruptive kind of tendentious editing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support - L2's continuing his behavior pattern after multiple discussions that have pointed out its disruptiveness, and his POV-oriented editing in general, justifies a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support - Overall, this is a perennial topic that has never garnered wise support to change the status quo. Ludwigs2 tried and failed in March of this year, then came back to try again. Same result. He has said many many times that he will not stop bringing this up until he gets what he wants, so administrative action is necessary to do for Ludwigs what he is unable or unwilling to do for himself. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support, sort of. A topic ban on article talk pages only might work best. I believe Ludwigs2 should be free to propose clarifications or changes to Wikipedia policy in more appropriate places such as the Village Pump. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support - from what I can see, his editing on the subject is tendentious. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Guys, you need to appreciate that our present article fails to show the typical representations of Muhammad, while showing six examples of a very rare type of illustration that also happens to be offensive to many who have grown up in the Islamic tradition. Muhammad is normally portrayed abstractly, and there is a very rich tradition of calligraphy, symbols and pictograms to do that – which we don't show. Examples: [41] [42] The effect of our present article is not unlike the effect the Jesus article would have on the reader if you showed them just one cathedral painting, plus 6 shock images of Christ like Piss Christ and Jesus on the electric chair (also shown in a cathedral, but hardly representative). You could argue NOTCENSORED there, but no one would go for it, because editors would realise that it would just be completely undue to focus on such exceptional images, while neglecting the mainstream depictions of Christ. The problem with Islam, unfortunately, is that our editorship is generally less familiar with it and doesn't pick up on such subtleties. [43] So I don't think Ludwigs2 is being tendentious here; it's his opponents who are, probably unwittingly so. --JN466 07:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose in the strongest possible way. As Anthony has pointed out at Talk:Pregnancy Ludwigs POV is increasingly gaining ground, and he was explicitly asking for compromise which seems to be happening now at last, despite the ideological absolutism of one or two editors. This Muhammad depiction issue is also astounding. I've known about it for some time but purposefully kept a distance. What I'm now reading is a sorry collection of some of the most ignorant arguments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This is an area that could use some expert commentary because I see a lot of very confused arguments for keeping these images in the Muhammad article as general illustrations. You will find plenty Muslims in today's day and age who are not offended by these images, and plenty others who are. What you wont find are Muslims who find them normative in any way. You wont find Muslims with depictions like this hanging on their walls, filling pages of books in their libraries or hanging at their place of worship. Why? Because depictions of Muhammad are fringe within Islamic history. That's a very basic fact. Sure there are traditions within which he has been visually depicted, and we have an entire article to cover that fact Depictions of Muhammad. But in the main Muhammad entry these images are completely UNDUE and nonrepresentational of the mainstream tradition today and throughout history and across the globe. Outside of the offense issue this whole matter can be resolved by applying WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Expert commentary that has been provided disagrees with your assertions above. See the comments from Johnbod, for example, in the current debate as well as the one from last March, concerning the prevalence of such images throughout history. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC) What exactly is Johnbod an expert in? I'm a scholar of religion and I have taught Western Religion courses. My assertions are based on that. Also, please do not confuse assertions about the art history of the Depictions of Muhammad with the history of Islam. For instance all the "scholarly" evidence I've seen Mathsci produce has been 100% irrelevant to this question. Relevant to the depictions entry yes, or to Islamic art but we are not talking about those entries. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Your argument above seems entirely based on judgements of an art historical nature to do with the uses to which art is and historically has been put. I suggest you read the Gruber pdf below, where you will find much contrary evidence to your anecdotal OR. You obviously don't know the right Muslims, though I'd suggest some of them turn up now & then on your tv screen. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Maybe that is where the divide stems from? This is not an article on religion. It is a biography on a person. Why are we treating it like it's a religious article? We don't treat the Edison article like it's an article on lightbulbs. Related to the religion he started, yes. Included in that category because it is relevant to that religion, yes. About that religion, no. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Robert you couldn't be more wrong. I assume you also think that Jesus and Abraham are not religious topics, they are just biographies? The primary sources we have on Muhammad are religious. The secondary and tertiary sources the article is based on are written by, scholars of religion. I wont deny that there is biography here, but clearly it is religious biography, and clearly it is much more than that. This topic falls within the field of religion and history of religion, and history of Islam most specifically and most importantly. I'm perfectly willing to believe you made that assertion out of a genuine confusion of some kind, but if so please understand that you are sorely out of your depth here, and seem to completely misunderstand how the academic study of this topic is organized. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Not at all out of my depth. It is a biography, albeit about a religious figure. It is not an article about Islam that happens to mention a person. Of course, since his major notability is Islam, it will broadly cover those, including using sources of the appropriate nature. But it is still a biography. It is not Islam which is how it is being treated. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I stand by my last statement. Religious traditions include all kinds of things, like founding figures. They are part of that tradition, and when what we know about them comes from the tradition, when what people have cared to know about them is related to that tradition, and when scholars who study them are scholars of that religious tradition what we have is, above all, a religious subject. Saying you are not out of your depth only makes your comments seem that much more ignorant. Sorry.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Griswaldo, stop harassing people who disagree with you. We do not treat religious figures with undue reverence in the Wikipedia. We write biographies, not hagiographies. If you don't know the difference between the two, then perhaps we should be talking about the depth of your understanding of the subject matter, or lack thereof. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Griswaldo, stop harassing people who disagree with you. That's a very odd thing to say to someone responding to people who challenged his own comment. I explain why I oppose this and people challenge me on it and when I respond to them that's "harassment?" Tarc next time you mean to post something look over the conversation enough not to say something inane. As to the difference between a biography and a hagiography I'm well aware of it, but I'm not sure if you mean hagiography in a technical sense or in the now more common sense. I'm certainly not promoting an uncritical view of Muhammad (common sense) though I do recognize that the "biographical" source materials for Muhammad are mostly compiled by followers of his who, if this is the correct term to apply to Muhammad even, considered him a holy person (more technical sense). That said I quite clearly understand that he's not a Christian saint, and that we're not writing about him based on an actual tradition of hagiography (most technical sense). If you believe that historians of religion only tackle biography in terms of hagiography, or as Johnbod appears to believe only in terms of theology, then you're sadly mistaken. I'll point out to you once again that this entry is written from sources that are almost entirely historians of religion (specifically Islam). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Absolutely oppose... and I don't even want to repeat the reasons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose The fact that Ludwig's position may be in the minority doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to it and wikipedia operates by consensus rather then majority rules anyway. The Muhammad image issue is clearly far from a simple one with plenty of people repeating themselves. (I took part in a long ago RFC and I think I said then as others have said now on both sides that the parallels with other figures isn't simply since unlike with many other figures like Jesus, Buddha, in the modern era even people familiar with the subject will often have seen few depictions and not really have much of any preconceived idea about depictions of the person. As I grew up as a Christian in Malaysia, I can definitely attest to that. Therefore the issue of undue weight, historic vs current practice, readers expectations, making sure our use of images is sufficiently educational rather then simply offensive form a complicated mix and simply yelling 'notcensored' doesn't go anywhere particularly since most people including Ludwings aren't arguing for removing the images completely from wikipedia but how many and where they should be in Muhammad as opposed to other articles like depictions of Muhammad.) Having looked at the discussion, I agree with Seb, Griswaldo and others, cutting out Ludwigs will harm the discussion by removing an important counter-POV and I do not believe Ludwigs is being tendentious. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Please do not assign gross mischaracterizations to our motives as you appear to have (probably unintentionally) done in your first sentence. No one is asking for the removal of Wiqi55, Jayen, Anthonyhcole, Hans (yet), or various others who have similar views. It is the attacks against other editors, the bad faith proposals, the end runs around RfC attempts, the tendentiousness and disruptiveness (which he personally admits to continuing) and such that has dragged him here. A tiny handful of diffs are already included to support this. It would thus be greatly appreciated if you would correct or clarify your mischaracterization. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC) No I'm not changing my comment. As I've said, the issue of something being in a minority or majority is not particularly relevant since we operate by consensus yet it was brought up several times in this discussion as have related issues like how he continues to maintain a POV that all images should be removed or stuff about how editors advocating the deletion of images need to stop, this being a secular encyclopaedia, his view being incompatibile with wikipedia's mission etc. As I already said in my first comment, I've look at the discussion and I see no evidence he is being tendentious much more so then other people on all sides. He is not automatically tendentious because he continues to support a view that is in the 'minority' or mentions that view when relevant. I don't see any evidence he's operating in bad faith either. The fact that he retains a certain POV and continues to express it when relevant doesn't mean he isn't open minded, it may simply be arguments he's seen so far haven't sufficiently convinced him. As you yourself have acknowledged, he is willing to support and discuss alternative options even if they aren't his preference and he retains his preference. Ultimately there are plenty of areas on wikipedia where there is always going to be strong differing views and where any option is going to be opposed by a fair number of people and therefore the issue will keep coming up again and again. Achieving consensus may mean a compromise, but it doesn't mean people can't maintain or should never bring up their primary preference where relevant. As a case in point, I recently participated in a discussion on the move for Burma to Myanmar. I don't believe a consensus is going to be reached for the move, but either way, I don't expect this issue to be resolved any time soon (although I do think there will eventually be some resolution, at some stage the government is going to be accepted enough that whatever name they choose, most will follow and eventually only a few will try to argue for something else, like with Mumbai/Bombay for example). As for the RFC, it seems premature as there was existing, recent discussion which should have been used to guide an RFC, and it's obviously far better to work towards an agreed wording, so I agree it was a bad idea. That doesn't mean it was in bad faith. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Support; mind you, it's not the fact that we fall on opposite sides of this argument that leads me to do this, nor is it the comments by the really involved editors in this dispute. However, I have a problem with being told I have some sort of prejudice against Islam by someone who's never met me based on one comment (it's in one of the numerous diffs above, I can bring it down if necessary; incidentally, people who know me know I've read Avicenna, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Taymiyya, and Malcolm X, to name just a few), which shows a serious lack of perspective on the issue (the fact that I don't agree on this issue doesn't make me anti-Muslim). Nor do I take kindly to the constant repetition of arguments that RobertMfromLI described a section above. And if anyone wants to get on me, I have PDD-NOS, so I stand guilty as charged of being on the spectrum; however, I don't see how that's germane to this particular topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support I am (as far as I can tell) totally uninvolved with this dispute, but after reading the associated talk pages, the horrendously worded RFC, and seeing the number of times this user has brought the same, somewhat disingenuous arguments about this issue, this seems like the appropriate step. Not to mention that, as gets pointed out repeatedly on the images talk page but has gone mostly unnoticed in the discussion of the images here: these images were created by Muslims, so the argument that these images are forbidden is on incredibly shaky ground. To keep using this argument warrants a suggestion that Ludwig drop the WP:STICK. eldamorie (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC) The fact that these images were created by muslims to illustrate a certain type of book 500 or 800 years ago does not make them useful or obligatory illustrations in the Muhammad article. The fact is that if you want to show how Muhammad is portrayed in Islamic religious art, you need to be aware that "For practical purposes, representations are not found in [Islamic] religious art ... Instead there occurred very soon a replacement of imagery with calligraphy and the concomitant transformation of calligraphy into a major artistic medium." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Islamic Arts, Macropaedia, Vol. 22, p. 76.) We are showing typical religious art in the article on Jesus, but you seem to be unaware of how untypical our illustrations in the article on Muhammad are. --JN466 17:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC) or 800 years ago, 300, 200, etc and still today. While there is certainly far far less figurative art in Islamic art, there is a continuous tradition, including from the 13th century representations of Muhammad, though far less in the Arabic-speaking world than for example Persia and Turkey. There are better sources here than the EB (who anyway appear to be talking about the first centuries of Islam), for example this handy PDF from the leading specialist today, in the leading journal. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC) John this line of reasoning wholly misses the point. The argument is not that depictions of Muhammad weren't being created continuously. The argument is that they have not been common within the Islamic tradition as a whole and throughout it's history, and indeed have been explicitly frowned upon more often than naught. Above Robert accuses me of confusing this entry with Islam, but I think that his accusation is backwards. It is you who are confusing this entry with Depictions of Muhammad or even Islamic art, both valuable entries in which depictions of Muhammad have their educational value. But again, the question isn't about banning these images completely from the encyclopedia it is with the use of them in the main entry on Islam's founding prophet, a figure who has been known 99% of the time without visual representation. I don't mean to make this into a turf war, but the fact that art historians work in this area is meaningless to the over arching issue. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC) And how are questions about the commonness of a particular form of art not a question of art history? The history of religion may tell you what theologians said people ought to do or not do, but art history will tell you what they actually did, or do, something general religious historians are not qualified to pronounce on. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC) You do not understand what the history of religions covers apparently and that is quite unfortunate. It includes the history of ideas (which doesn't mean only theology btw) but it also covers social history. Your art history sources merely attest to the fact that the traditions of depiction existed and that within realm of Islamic art more generally they were more or less common in certain periods. The fact is that depictions of Muhammad have a negligible influence on the perception of Muhammad that has formed historically inside and outside the Muslim world. This is where the difference between Muhammad and say Jesus or Buddha is immensely significant. The historical perception of those figures has been significantly influenced by physical depictions, which, again unlike with Muhammad, abound historically and cross-culturally. Now mainstream sources in the history of Islam, which are the main sources for this entry and for information about Muhammad are true to this fact. The way we present information about Muhammad should follow these sources, and should not be unduely weighted towards information that is of virtually fringe stature when it comes to the perception of this figure. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, I was not aware that depictions of historic events, even made years after the fact, were against some policy or guideline. I guess we have a lot of articles to fix. Wanna give me a hand? As you noted, this is not about the depictions of Muhammad. As I noted, it is about Muhammad - which is a place where one (free from religious beliefs) would expect to find depictions of Muhammad, both singular subject (ie: just him) and event based (ie: in a historic setting). Or are you trying to state that since this image largely touches on Islam it should adhere to religious beliefs and religious actions (on types of depictions)? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC) It should simply show the most common and representative depictions, and they are abstract, not figurative. --JN466 21:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Johnbod, I assure you the EB is talking about the defining characteristics of Islamic Art generally, and about the lasting impact Islam had on the artistic traditions of the peoples that embraced Islam. I really don't think the wording could be more emphatic: "For practical purposes, representations are not found in Islamic religious art". The images that do exist are appropriate in a curiosity cabinet like the dedicated article we have on them. --JN466 19:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Well then, here as elsewhere, EB is not the best source. It is a strange statement, as very many of the best-known Persian manuscripts contain at least one Mi'raj miniature. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC) You can find the same sorts of statements all over the place. [44][45]. It's not like the Encyclopaedia Britannica is at variance here with the rest of the literature by stating a well-known fact about Islamic religious art. Yes, there have been limited traditions of depictions of Muhammad, especially in Persia about 800 years ago, but that is all it is. However interesting it may be, I am sure you don't wish to argue that it is anywhere close to being the mainstream form of artistic expression with respect to Muhammad in the overall body of Islamic art. That's calligraphy, hilyes etc. --JN466 21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I gave you Muqarnas (below) & you respond with "well-known facts" from Islam for Dummies!!! Puuurleeease! The idea behind "especially in Persia about 800 years ago" for example, is nonsense. The various depictions of M from the few remains of that period receive a lot of academic attention, as from the founding period of the Islamic period, but there were probably more depictions in Persia from 600-400 years ago, or Turkey in the same period (certainly far more survive), and there are definately way more in Iran today. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC) It's not going to work, Johnbod. I also gave you Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Muslim World. And just for reference, Islam for Dummies is published by John Wiley & Sons, and written by a professor of religion. There is academic interest in the depictions of Muhammad, but it is a small specialist academic niche compared to the general field. Here is a bit more on the difference between Islam's and Christianity's approaches: [46], [47]. --JN466 01:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Please stop - I wrote most of Aniconism in Islam. Your comments are still misleading, and have only a highly tangential bearing on the issue here. If you think you have some "well-known facts" to share with the wiki-world, take it to the appropriate pages. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Strange indeed that Aniconism in Islam did not contain any aniconic art, but only exceptions to the rule. --JN466 20:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC) John, the article appears to be filled with original research or otherwise unreferenced text. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Also, your statement (I wrote most of Aniconism in Islam) appears to be false unless you edited under a different name formerly. The edit history shows you merely significantly expanding one or two sections while making other copy and style edits. I did find it an odd claim given how unsourced much of the entry is, though those sections appear to have been in place before you started editing to your credit.Griswaldo (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Support - this is the same atrocious behaviour from Ludwigs that he exhibited at Talk:Pregnancy. Enough is enough. → ROUX ₪ 19:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support. The biased wording of Ludwigs' RfC on the matter is the tipping point. As I note above, I clearly feel that he is a disruptive force on this topic, but I wanted to give him a chance to participate in an RfC on the matter when it was created. However, he can't even manage to maintain NPOV when formulating an RfC question, which coupled with numerous other examples of problematic behaviour strongly argues that he is not capable of discussing this matter in a non-disruptive fashion. Resolute 22:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support. I don't particularly care about the content arguments, nor have I edited anything Islam-related. However, this is the same behavior that L2 displayed at Astrology, Pregnancy, and a multitude of fringe science articles. The general pattern is that he stakes out a ostensibly reasonable but unpopular policy position and proceeds to accuse those who disagree of ignorance and/or unsophistication and/or bad faith and/or cabalism and/or POV-pushing (list is not exhaustive). Ad hominem rhetoric and textbook IDHT follows. Just yesterday he insinuated that an editor whom he disagreed with was a sociopath.[48] He's been topic banned from astrology.[49] He was warned numerous times for his behavior at Talk:Pregnancy.[50][51][52][53] He was even cautioned by Arbcom to "avoid drama-creating rhetoric" in a recent case.[54] This needs to stop. This is a problem of poor behavior, not content. Skinwalker (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose Unconvincing, a user is topic banned for serious disruption or to avoid an indef. I see none of that here, the user holds a minority opinion and engaged in legitimate procedures (talk, RFC) as opposed to other illegitimate alternatives. Nobody can be blamed for that; the proposal reads like "This user is shouting to loud and it annoys us" Well calmly engage in discussion or ignore. Tachfin (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I must ask, even by your rationale, may I ask you how many personal attacks and racial/religious type slurs/attacks is the quota that was needed? Lemme know, and I'll change my !vote. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Support The only time I have had interactions with this editor was when he was complaining that no one was listening to him. When I pointed out that all of his concerns had been listened to, and had subsequently been rejected, he went on to attack me by calling my comment unintelligent. I gave up after that, thinking that there was absolutely nothing anyone could say to this guy, to get him to stop. He will never stop unless he is topic banned, plain and simple.--JOJ Hutton 20:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Support While editing may be a bonus from all users the constant regressions into personal attacks and policy whack a mole do not lead to constructive editing. Even when called out on personal attacks he makes no attempt to either apologize to the target or refrains from doing so again. In one case he even called out someone else as using a personal attack and then soundly proceeded to do the same within the same post. Since that point he continues with the attacks. If someone needs diffs I will learn that piece and post them to show the multitude of attacks I have seen but I don't think that is necessary. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Support ban. It looks like he bounces from one article to the next causing disruption wherever he goes. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Support ban - dead horse. I'd also support an indef block for causing more trouble than he's worth. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose ban All you idiots need to go away and stop waving "OMG NOTCENSORED" in everyone's faces. Thank you. --cc 11:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The user casting the above !vote was indef blocked today. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC) support ban. Ludwigs has been extremely disruptive and never quotes wikipedia policy and wastes valuable time. Pass a Method talk 19:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose ban. From what I have read, Ludwigs has a decent case to make, which is not so much about censorship, but about questioning what, if any, positive reason there is to have these images on that page. I've yet to see anyone answering that question in a satisfactory way; most of those who have been responding to Ludwig2 haven't even tried. Given this, it seems to me that his behavior has also been relatively restrained. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC) I am not quite sure what you mean. The 2009 book by the Islamic scholar Omid Safi Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters is copiously illustrated by historical images of the Prophet Muhammad. (Safi is chair of the Study of Islam in the American Academy of Religion.) In none of the many reviews of this book has any objection been made to the images. But the point here is Ludwigs2's conduct, which appears to have very little to do with the particular subject matter involved (pseudoscience, astrology, pregnancy, etc). Mathsci (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Hi. I mean what I say I mean: which is, first, that Ludwigs point is that those who are arguing for the inclusion of these images on the page need to come up with rather better reasons for their inclusion than they have hitherto. Whether or not some other publication (in this case, Safi's book) includes them is wholly beside the point, unless your argument is "they do it, so we should too." Which is not much of an argument. And then, second, given the fact that (as you are illustrating here) so many people refuse to see the point, and prefer rather to jump up and down shouting "censorship" at him, Ludwigs's conduct seems to me to be very restrained indeed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC) We will never come up with sufficient reasons for Ludwigs, because he has shown a habit of moving the goalposts every time his arguments get refuted. That being said, reverse the question. Consensus coming in was that the images belonged. It is actually on Ludwigs to generate a new consensus that supports his view, and thus far his arguments have been centred entirely around the argument that some people find them offensive. He keeps getting beat over the head by NOTCENSORED because his only argument is to censor the article to suit a specific religious viewpoint. Also, I suspect his conduct is only restrained right now because he is teetering on the edge of a topic ban. He was very liberal in accusing anyone he disagreed with of bigotry, among other personal attacks, for a considerable period of this debate. At present, he continues to try and argue editors in circles until they give up in frustration. Resolute 01:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC) "We will never come up with sufficient reasons for Ludwigs." This sounds like a violation of WP:AGF. And for what it's worth, I think that talk of censorship is completely beside the point. So far as I can see, ludwigs is not arguing that images of Mohammed should not appear on Wikipedia; rather he is saying that they should not appear in *this* article. And that the onus is on those who think that they do belong in this article to prove their case. And, especially in that those who disagree with him seem to refuse to engage his argument, I think he has a pretty good point. And he's making it remarkably civilly given the amount of grief he's getting, of which your refusal to assume good faith is merely one (further) small instance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC) As I mentioned on Jimbo's talk, Safi has also pointed out that most muslims have refrained from making such images, that there are no such images in mosques and public places of worship, that in place of pictorial representations, there is a rich tradition of calligraphy, arabesques and natural designs in Islam, and that when muslims friends come to his house, where he has an image of Muhammad, he thinks twice before telling them that it is, in fact, an image of Muhammad, as some react badly to it. And I would add that Ludwigs2 has been and is being subjected to an unseemly barrage of personal comments by editors on Jimbo's talk page. --JN466 01:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC) oppose ban per conviction and I do endorse the reasons given by JN466. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Support the guy causes more issues then he solves. Put down the stick already --Guerillero | My Talk 23:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose Too complex, controversial for mob justice. Submit to dispute resolution, WP:RFC/U and WP:ARBCOM. causa sui (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC) (moved vote to appropriate section) --Tachfin (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Re: "shouting to loud and it annoys us" This user was topic banned from astrology for poisoning-the-well comments, including comparing people who disagree with him with the KKK. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99#Ludwigs2. On the Muhammad issue, we see a repeat of the same behavior, albeit with minor reduction in intensity. Besides the overuse of caps lock and bold in his posts (see diff above for that): He writes about someone disagreeing with him that "people (like you) keep talking crap about me" He writes that until people agree with him (to remove depictions of Muhammad) Wikipedia is a Jerry Springer show [55]. He writes in a edit summary "except, Robert, no other policies matter to you" Writes about another user "You are not using ethical reasoning - that is a demonstrable fact" He writes about someone who disagreed with him "what you just said was patently idiotic nonsense. I swear..." He tells the same user: "keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche" He even admits, after redacting another passage (not one of the above), that "I just can't control my tongue." These are just the examples that struck me, there are probably more. There are other editors who agree with Ludwigs2 on the subject matter, including Jayen466 and Griswaldo, but these guys seem able to disagree without being so disagreeable. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Please close the topic-ban subthread Can an uninvolved admin please close this subthread now? The only people who have commented here, myself included, have strongly held opinions about the content dispute(s) that precipitated the thread. Almost all, if not all the people who want him topic banned, for instance, have diametrically opposed POVs to his. Clearly we are not about to enact a topic ban based on those voices. So have we had enough of this? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC) This has nothing to do with his views. It has to do with DOZENS of personal attacks and tendentiously using the incorrect venue to try to implement policy change to remove the secular mandate in the last paragraph of WP:CENSOR. Your implication, as I perceive it, that this is about the content dispute may hold true to your !vote, but I can assure you, there are numerous others of us that it does not apply to - including the numerous editors who !voted (on either side of this) who were not engaged in this situation at all. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I see no reason to close this subtread, when !votes and comments are still being posted, with policy-based supports (14) and opposes (6). Let the process play out, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC) The supports and opposes are not policy-based, they are based on subjective evaluations of Ludwigs2's behaviour on the page in question. Almost all these subjective evaluations happen to be aligned with editors' attitudes to the underlying conflict. This makes them essentially worthless. Hans Adler 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I wonder whether at this time of year Hans Adler's usually impeccable logic might not be a little clouded by premature doses of Martinigansl please don't click here if you are a vegetarian. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC) @Hans Adler: Whether the !votes are policy-based are not is something for the closing admin to evaluate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Therein may lie the objections from some to keeping things open until an uninvolved admin does such. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 18/7/1 (on just count)... soon may be the time to end this? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 08:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Perhaps a reasonable compromise? All the participants in the talk page discussion have come here and are basically continuing the same sorts and styles of arguments, it's all just looping. Perhaps I might suggest a compromising position. Someone start an RFC and contact, neutrally mind you, some of the relevant wikiprojects to participate. To prevent a rehash of the talk page, the opposing sides in this debate should state their positions and refrain from substantially trying to sway other participants. Having re-read the discussion, and being totally uninvolved, I can see the arguments of both sides. Run the RCC< don't just talk about it. --Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs has been asked, many times, to follow the dispute resolution process if he thinks he has a case to make. This user tried out this argument that WP:NOTCENSORED does not protect the image usage in the article, a view that received little support in March of this year. Now he's back again, twisting a foundation resolution that has no applicability to the situation, an incessant 3-week drumbeat. Those editors who support hosting a Wikipedia article free of religious censorship have no need to initiate an RfC, as the status quo is just fine. Ludwigs will get no relief and will make no headway in regurgitating the same arguments over and over at the article talk page. The ball is squarely in his court to follow dispute resolution if he will not accept the consensus at the article talk. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Therein lies the rub. There is no consensus, nor will there ever be. There are two camps each with a large number of adherents. One camp favors no censorship, the other favors censorship as a special case. We hear from new members of the latter group almost daily on the main article's talk page generally representing Muslims around the world. Rklawton (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oh, but there is consensus. Yes, we see periodic posts that inform us Islam forbids such images. Someone replies with the argument that we are not an Islamic project, often linking to the methods by which individuals can respect their own beliefs by hiding the images for themselves, and they move on. But the "remove all images" camp has no policy backed argument, only the complaint that "I am offended". Simple numbers do not create a no-consensus situation. Otherwise, there would be no consensus on the argument that many athletes are "gay" because fans of rival teams often edit to say so. Resolute 13:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Agreed. If you look at the overall commentary on the talk page, the status quo is generally favoured. There is one single regular editor there (Ludwigs2) who supports censorship on religious grounds, and another (Anthonyhcole) who has attempted in good faith to formulate an RfC proposal. Then there is Hans Adler, who shows up from time to time, accuses editors he disagrees with of bad faith (as he has above in this very discussion) then disappears. Pretty much everyone else supports the current situation. Ludwigs has been advised it is up to him to initiate DR, because the rest of us don't see a need. Instead, he chooses to waste a great deal of time for numerous editors by forcing discussion back into circular arguments. Granted, the rest of us keep responding, though I have tried to step back involvement overall. I won't vote on the topic ban proposal, but I will say this: the problem would disappear if Ludwigs were to be placed under one. The "dispute" is that one-sided. Resolute 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) No there are other editors, such as Wiki55. Unfortunately all these named editors persist in making grossly inaccurate statements about the images actually in the article, such as (above here) "..."that by including so many images from a very narrow time period and fairly narrow interpretation of Islam we are in fact violating WP:UNDUE)." by Qwyrxian. For the record (and yet again) the 5 Islamic images come from a period of over 500 years (and we don't have a contemporary one available), include at least 2 Sunni ones (possibly all 5 are actually Sunni) and come from Persia (2), Turkey (2), and Kashmir. A very similar spread, if not wider, to the sort of (almost always Catholic) old master painters we use to illustrate Jesus and other Christian articles, ignoring the many Protestants who still regard these as idolatrous. Some editors have been putting time in over a long period pushing the line that all the images are Persian and Shia, and by implication can therefore be dismissed. There is a considerable intra-Islamic component to this dispute, & its a pity that people who ought to know better, like Hans Adler and Anthonyhcole have accepted this line without much examination. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Just for the record, would you please link to an instance of me making grossly inaccurate statements about the images actually in the article? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Blackmane: I'd agree that an RfC would be a good starting point, but even trying to determine the proper language for an RfC becomes a major point of strife. For instance, every RfC approach I've suggested starts from my perception of the problem - that the images have no appreciable value which justifies the offense they cause to our readers - but any such wording is instantly nixed by Tarc, Robert, and Resolute as being against NOTCENSORED. I could start an RfC on my own (and I will if that's what you suggest), but the RfC will most likely devolve into more of the same dispute as the editors opposed to change dispute its validity (in fact, at least a couple of threads currently on the page show exactly that devolution as we've tried to discuss proper wording for the RfC). As far as I can see, the page is locked down in such a way that any discussion about removing the images is declared to be against policy. I don't know how to get past that obstruction except to keep trying to talk through it. --Ludwigs2 14:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I have posted what I am coming to believe is the only reasonable thing, which will show good faith on the parts of those who wish the images removed and properly adhere to policy uniformly instead of (yet again) special case for this article only. It's on the article's talk page in a new section.[56] Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 14:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The first item is the "gotcha", i.e. that there's no valid encyclopedic reason to remove the artists' conceptions of Muhammed if you're going to retain artists' conceptions of Jesus, etc. The second item is the "yeh, but" option, which opens a huge can of worms that would abolish the "I don't like it" barrier and turn wikipedia into even more of a free-for-all. So why does anyone think Muslim readers deserve special treatment, while Christian readers can go "freak" themselves? Well, there's no logical reason, so it must be driven by fear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC) In the current circumstances, I'm not sure that the recent extensive rewriting of WP:CONSENSUS by Ludwigs2 was timely.[57] It now reads a bit like a personal essay. (Off-topic for ANI) In 2002 Yale University Press published the book "Peerless Images: Persian Painting and its Sources" by Eleanor Sims, Boris Marshak and Ernst Grube, academics who have curated the Islamic art collections in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Hermitage, St Petersburg. It contains several images of the Prophet Muhammad. Looking at the book and its detailed commentary, it is hard to understand how images of this sort could be considered uninformative or without educational value. As the New York Times has reported just recently,[58] the Metropolitan Museum of Art has just reopened its Islamic collection after 8 years of remodeling. On display are Persian illuminated manuscripts, including images of the Prophet Muhammad, visible in the NYT link and here on the Museum's own website [59] (the short NYT audio link for "illuminated manuscripts" is interesting). It is also on commons here and has been used several times on fa.wikipedia.org. Mathsci (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) (to Bugs) Bingo. I treat EVERY article the same, regardless of my personal beliefs or feelings of offense. And there is not a single mainstream religion or irreligion or spirituality that is not on my WatchList (along with hundreds of sub topic articles). Thus, all I ask is the same from everyone else - judge every article and article content equally. No more, no less. Which seems to fit with those weird things we have here called policies, guidelines and editing in good faith. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The importance of the Muhammed depictions is actually the same as the importance of the many Jesus images. Whether they look like their subject is not the issue, that's a red herring. What's important is that it reflects how the followers of those faiths saw their spiritual leader. It provides a window on styles of artistic portrayals in various times and places. If that ain't educational, I don't know what is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Bugs: re your "What's important is that it reflects how the followers of those faiths saw their spiritual leader". This is precisely the problem: The followers of Islam do not generally depict their spiritual leader, and when they do it's usually symbolically, as a flame or a veiled figure. full-face images of muhammad are a rarity, mostly restricted to a couple of historical periods. I absolutely agree with your statement, but your statement implies we should remove images of the prophet and use the symbolic forms that Muslims themselves use. --Ludwigs2 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC) "Saw", as in past tense. You're describing the present. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I'm not just describing the present, but the most prevalent view, historically and currently. Full-face depictions are not common. It's funny: I even offered a compromise on the talk page where we would create a section specifically about the historical depiction of Muhammad in which to put images of this sort (they would be appropriate there, in a section that discusses the controversy of depictions of the prophet), but that got shot down for some reason I never understood. If we go by standards of common usage, full face images are excluded as a distinct minority style; if we go by conventional ethics full-face images are excluded because they offend people for no gain to the encyclopedia. There's no reason I can think of to keep the images (though I'm open to suggestions), so why are they on the article in the first place? Remember, these are simply works of art - there are no known depictions of what Muhammad actually looked like.--Ludwigs2 16:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Actually, that proposal flies in the face of what has deemed to be the standard (per policy and guideline interpretation) on every other such article on Wikipedia. Thus, what you proposed is not a compromise, but a special case exception. Biographies have images or depictions of their subject (and their subject in historical event settings) prominently placed throughout the article. This article already is chock full of special case exceptions that are not warranted, such as (on the talk pages) the massive disclaimers, the FAQ, the instructions on how not to view the images, the removal of all images of Muhammad in the top 1/3 of the article, the explanations of policy on the talk page and so on. I am against adding one more special case exception. Doing so will eventually lead (as you desire) to there being no images of Muhammad on this or any other article. I would bet good money that if (by some remote chance) all images were removed from this article, that you would move on to the other articles next. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (Besides the fact that each time you claim you are willing to travel this road, you still end up on your "remove all, they offend" road instead). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC) So you keep saying, but (again) I question this reasoning. It all comes back to the simple problem that Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason. As I keep saying, If you show these images have non-trivial value to justify the problems they cause, then obviously they would be protected. However, every time I say that, you decline to show that they have value and instead asset that it's a violation of policy to consider that. The arguments you've given in your post above break down as follows: my proposal - that we use the most common imagery used by muslims - "flies in the face of" policy (not true; that is actually exactly what NPOV asks of us) that other articles show images (irrelevant, since other articles do not have to consider a well-known religious proscription) that the ability for individuals to censor the images themselves justifies Wikipedia using the images (patently ridiculous) that removing images from this article will lead to removal of all images everywhere (hyperbolic and nonsensical) that I somehow personally desire the removal of all images everywhere (hyperbolic, nonsensical, contrary to what I've said in talk, and a bad-faith personal attack to boot) Really, please… --Ludwigs2 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The claim that "Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason" is your personally-held opinion that you repeatedly put there as some sort of immutable fact that us dumb heathens cannot understand. This is really the heart of your problem Ludwigs, and the reason why many are beginning to dismiss your actions as tendentious and disruptive. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Uh… Tarc: it's a proscription in a faith with something like a billion followers. even if we only restrict ourselves to the most fundamentalist groups (the ones most likely to take offense) that's still millions or tens of millions of people There are 16 archives of heated debate solely over this issue on the article - really, you made a subpage just to handle the volume of complaints, and that subpage has 16 archives That's a whoooole lot of evidence, Tarc: How do you justify calling this my 'personally held opinion'? --Ludwigs2 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC) "it's a proscription in a faith with something like a billion followers". No it is not. You don't help your case by typing in false statements. It may be that a few current adherents of the religion believe there is such a proscription, but even if there is, it applies to the adherents, not to us. I think a fair number of people have been mislead into thinking there is a broad proscription, and I think they are wrong, but it is not useful to debate how many people (correctly or incorrectly) believe in the proscription, it is only relevant to ask whether a proscription of a religious group has any force on non members of the group. If you answer yes, please explain why, as that conclusion leads to madness.--SPhilbrickT 22:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oh gosh, we're back to the "religious offense - must honor religious beliefs" rationale. That means WP:IAR is probably soon to follow. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Ludwigs, another claim I attacked you? And then another false claim about my actions? I've posted, numerous times, multiple reasons the images have value. Here is a tiny sampling of diffs to prove it.[60][61][62][63][64][65] It is not I who is ignoring anything. And this is exactly the type of thing you do on the article's image talk page. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Also I would like to point out that the neutral point of view doesn't argue your claim. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" would be useful if you were also trying to include modern (what you describe as common) images of muhammad but isn't a basis to remove current pictures because they were a significant view of what the islamic community was allowed to do. And since the minority of the religion still believes its acceptable to view pictures (you know that 15% of the billion which also falls into millions and millions of people) it would be purposefully ignoring that POV as well. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs, let's look at the phrase again, this time with crystal-clear highlighting; "Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason" THAT part is your opinion, opinion you keep trying to pass off as fact. That a group of people are offended is fact, yes. That we are including the images in the article "for no real reason" is opinion. Are we settled now? Tarc (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The 'for no real reason' part is something that is open for discussion - as I keep saying, if you can demonstrate that the images have a reasonable value to offset the problems they cause, then the images can stay. However, using policy to prevent wp:Consensus discussion on this issue is the troubling point. --Ludwigs2 19:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC) That's the point; it was open for discussion, and your position was rejected. We don't need to demonstrate what you are asking for. End of story. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC) "if you can demonstrate that the images have a reasonable value to offset the problems they cause, then the images can stay." This isn't the appropriate metric. Do the images cause some problems? Absolutely, they do, as a lot of ill-informed people request removal, and it is a problem dealing with them. But I'm not interested in assessing the value of the images to the encyclopedia and comparing it to the problems caused, I'm interested in the damage that would be caused to the encyclopedia if we sent a message that raising a ruckus is a good way to impose your will. Neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated why Wikipedia should pervert its own guideless simply because they are in conflict with someone else's desires. If claiming offense works here, what is to stop a temperance group from insisting that WP not have any articles about alcohol, or a child decency group from insisting that pictures of nudes should be removed. There are all kinds of groups who request removal of blocks of material. We politely decline all such requests (except when the material might be in violation of law). If we grant one groups request, we have to grant all group's request, or you have to explain why this request is unique. I don't think it is unique. SPhilbrickT 18:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC) To Ludwigs2: did I need to provide more diffs to my own postings of reasons? Should I have included the numerous times other editors have posited reasons as well? You keep acting like we haven't stated reasons (reasons considered valid all across Wikipedia) - but we have. While perhaps seemingly numerous, the number of diffs above is probably in the 15-20% range of what I could provide to prove we have made such points. C'mon... the page is linked to in this AN/I, you know others are bound to figure out that you are incorrect in repeating your claims that we haven't done such. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This argument belongs elswhere, not at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oh, how we've tried so many times to point that out to the one who has the biggest issue with this. Even some of those who support some level of image removal have suggested or leaned towards such. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Small note: I've struck RobertMfromLI's name from my earlier post. Only one time did Robert ever imply an RfC wasn't necessary, and he did in fact try to restart the RfC several times. I don't know what made me think that he was one of the people trying to derail process in this case; my apologies. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Brass tacks straw poll This poll is not an administrator issue. Feel free to move this to a more appropriate venue, but this page is already becoming cluttered with irrelevent issues. Please keep the discussions on this page relevent to issues which need administrators to protect articles/delete articles/block a user. Admin noticeboards are not for general discussions of either policy or content issues. Let me suggest WP:VPP. --Jayron32 16:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I think we should take this opportunity and address the core issue that is gumming up the works here. Dispense with the following question it will likely end this dispute (one way or another); either it will obviate my grounds for wanting to remove the images or it will obviate the sole argument used to retain the images. The question: Granting that NOTCENSORED necessarily protects controversial content which makes an unambiguous contribution to an article, does NOTCENSORED also protect images that have trivial value to the article? In other words, NOTCENSORED clearly protects images of penises or vaginas on their namesake pages, or the cartoons of Muhammad on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy); does it also protect page decorations, artistic illustrations, unneeded explications, or other material of negligible content value to the article? I will bracket the above question as a policy RfC a bit later, unless someone suggests that's innapropriate. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This is again a biased question (just like your similar RfC proposal). You imply as fact that the images have trivial (even emphasized by you) value (and then go into detail about how trivial they are), thus pushing the conversation to summary deletion of all the images. Once again, in my opinion, this is a proposal in bad faith as it directs only one answer since you already established as "fact" that the images are trivial. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The argument hasn't been about protection of trivial images. It has been about images marked trivial. Also this is the incorrect forum for this question since it should be addressed at the village pump. The actual argument that the images are trivial should be occurring at the muhammad page not here. Effectively this is derailing the entire purpose behind this AN/I. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Comment. (edit conflict) I don't think this covers the issue, Ludwigs2. NOTCENSORED does not protect trivial material from deletion, but I don't believe the material in question counts as trivial. The amount of fuss over it certainly indicates that some editors believe it to be non-trivial. --FormerIP (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) FormerIP: if we clear up this issue, then we can actually sit down on the talk page and discuss whether or not the images have trivial value. Right now we cannot even have that discussion, because every time I suggest evaluating the worth of the images with respect to the offense they cause, two or three editors tell me that any such evaluation is against policy. NOTCENSORED is the One Ring on that page; until we clear up this issue the page is stuck. --Ludwigs2 16:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC) NOTCENSORED does not protect trivial material Support: Allowing NOTCENSORED to cover trivial material creates up an difficult-to-resolve opportunity for violating NPOV: controversial images can be put on a page merely to attack a perspective non-verbally, and held there by using NOTCENSORED to squelch discussion. This sets up the editing environment as a long-term BATTLEGROUND, where multiple editors try to address the issue and run into an endless wall of bureaucratic policy assertions. Wikipedia should not offend its readers with non-contributive controversial material (see wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). We offend where we have to, because we have to, not merely because we want to use that material. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support. Wikipedia does not seek to include as much offensive material as possible merely because offensive material is permitted in appropriate contexts. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not protected in the name of opposing censorship. --JN466 16:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) NOTCENSORED does protects trivial material Support, but this doesn't shield against other arguments. All NOTCENSORED requires is that arguments for deletion be framed in formats relevant to an encyclopedia, and religious arguments are not relevant to encyclopedias. We don't keep images because they offend religious groups, but we don't delete them because they do. Images have to be examined from a purely secular perspective.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Irrelevant to this discussion due to bias ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This poll is excessively and unduly biased by stating opinions (trivial worth) as fact wrt images on Muhammad) I posit that this poll, as it is specifically directed at this issue (or grossly in the wrong venue) is biased by implying opinion as fact to imply the only answer is to remove the images at Muhammad as all being (implied as fact above) trivial. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support - one should not bias such polls (or RfCs) by using their opinion as fact to ensure one specific POV outcome. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC) For anyone who wants a discussion of NOTCENSORED, I've just started one at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#What WP:NOTCENSORED is not. Robofish (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) * Notice: I've decided I'm going to copy this RfC over to wp:NOT, and wait for a result to be reached there before re-entering the discussion at talk:Muhammad/Images. that should end the discussion there for for a while (at least as far as I'm concerned). It also likely resolves this thread, though I'll leave that up to you. I'll post the link to the RfC here after I've made it. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC) This thread is not resolved as long as there is an open question of a possible topic ban for Ludwigs2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC) suit yourself - If you want to spend your time trying to find a punishment in a non-current situation, that's your business. Here's the link to the RfC. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs has said on his talk page that for the time being he will stay away from the page, I think this is a good faith proposition and would say that we should give him a chance to make his case in the correct venue before topic banning him. Noformation Talk 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I wasn't aware of his comment. Still, this is not his first time on the merry-go-round, when this blows over it's likely he'll exhibit the same behavior elsewhere. AGF is often in conflict with common sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC) What he said and what he is doing are counter to each other. He has proposed a very biased RfC that basically states the images are worthless, so shouldn't we remove them? He's simply using another venue to get the images removed and ignore countless consensus. Let's see now. RfC last Spring - runs to Village Pump: both RfC and end run fail (him). Proposes RfC this time around, not going the way he wants (removal of ALL images), tries end runs to WQA and ArbCom, disrupts attempts to create an UNBIASED RfC, gets dragged here and uses the distraction to file a BIASED RfC even in light of the fact that the rest of us were trying (through HIS disruptions) to create an unbiased one. (IMHO) This needs to stop. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC) ArbCom declined the case because it was formulated as a request to rule on content (policies). Perhaps a new case request focused on the behavior of the editors involved would be more appropriate? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Not too sure about that. I'm at over a hundred diffs and counting of bad faith, disruption and more (and I'm not even really trying). Ludwigs cannot come even remotely close, even combining diffs of such stuff for every editor "opposed" to him. Virtually all of the rest of us, on any side of the fence (or even sitting on it) want a resolution to this. Most of us are tired of the dead-horse-ad-infinitum-ad-nauseum responses with a bunch of accusations thrown on top. I'd rather see this resolved than a topic ban. But every good faith effort results in disruption or an end run attempt. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Comments on ongoing conduct of Ludwigs2 Despite having given assurances that he has reformed, Ludwigs2 has recently continued to ridicule and belittle those editors disagreeing with him. One of the difficulties is that he is being extremely slippery about why he is objecting to the images of Muhammad. It would appear that he believes, for whatever reason, that the courtly images of the Prophet Muhammad produced in illuminated manuscripts of the Ottoman Empire, Persia and elsewhere cause offense to some parts of the international Muslim community for religious reasons. However, when pressed on the subject by Kww, he has accused those repeating this statement of "making up cheap lies". In a conversation on his user talk page with Kww he wrote: [66] "They are cheap lies. maybe you believe them (in which case they are cheap lies you are telling yourself, rather than cheap lies you're telling to others), but from my perspective there's not a whole lot of difference. keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche, and deal with what I am saying to you as I say it (not filtered through the twists and turns of your own perspective)." It is an example of Ludwigs2 deliberately misunderstanding other users and switching from one argument to another. Already on User talk:Jimbo wales, he wrote of thise disagreeing with him:[67] "What's happened here is that some editors have recognized a particular and real threat against the project - censorship by religious groups trying to enforce their particular worldview - and reacted to it in an extreme and uncompromising manner. They are insisting that these images remain on the article solely and precisely because they are offensive - not because they want to offend, mind you, but because they are engrossed in battling censorship and have lost the ability to discriminate censorship from normal editing. Nor is this problem restricted to this article (you can see it play out in multiple areas of the project: fringe articles, political articles, cult-related articles). It's depressing." These statements are not accurate and are indeed a highly inflammatory way of describing other editors. It creates an impasse for any future discussion. (I personally have not voted in any image discussions but have located commentaries in WP:RS on the historical use of images of the Prophet, written by Islamic scholars from the East and the West.) On the same user talk page, Ludwigs2 later made this personal attack on Tarc, [68] "Yes, Tarc, and I've been reading this kind of post from you for the same amount of time, and I have to say it hasn't been particularly pleasant. It's just as I said above: all you need is a willing flamingo and a few hedgehogs to fill out your role as the Queen of Hearts. " These remarks were later redacted by Ludwigs2 after Short Brigade Harvester Boris criticized them. Ludwigs2's conduct has not reformed and these personal attacks seem completely counterproductive at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I am, obviously, fed up with the ad hominem these discussions are steeped in. They make reasonable discussion very difficult. But I would urge editors unfamiliar with this situation to not just rely on spoon-fed quotes in forming a view. The current negative tone of these discussions is set by more than one editor. If you feel like chiming in, at least read through the latest threads at Talk:Muhammad/images. That will give you a good feel for the general behaviour of the Dramatis personæ. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I hope that Ludwigs2 will get the message sooner rather than later.[69] Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Nothing is improving. [70] [71] Mathsci (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Not sure, but he seems a wee bit more moderate than in the examples from the past week. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2 has not stopped.[72] "We can have a decent discussion over whether Wikipedia needs/wants to offend the religious beliefs of all these people, but please stop trying to make the fact that we are offending their religious beliefs 'go away'. That kind of intellectual dishonesty gets in the way of a reasonable discussion." As usual these personal attacks ("intellectual dishonesty") are embedded in a longer discursive screed. Even if Ludwigs2 turned out to be a so-far unidentified world expert on the history of Islamic art (all signs are very much to the contrary), his conduct at the moment seems to be little more than flame-warring. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2 has the uncanny ability to phrase personal attacks in a way that skirts the direct wording of our WP:NPA policy. The basic construct is: "If you disagree with me (and I know you do, but don't say it in this sentence), then you are part of a despicable group, such as: the KKK / the intellectually dishonest / the Jerry Springer audience / those not using ethical reasoning / those uttering patently idiotic nonsense / etc." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Barely days after his last failed proposal for a case, Ludwigs2 is yet again suggesting an ArbCom case on roughly the same topic.[73] There is nothing ArbCom can do except for topic banning or banning users for disruptive conduct. Mathsci (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Wait again? Well we will see if that comes up again. Since ArbCom doesn't deal with content it's a waste but we will see. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC) What should be taken to Arbcom is the case of Ludwigs2 conduct. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2 still seems unaware that he is creating problems by making inflammatory statements.[74] "Honestly, I see this whole extended kerfluffle as a 'teaching moment' for the project, one where (maybe, with luck) we can all get past the kind of pugnacious adolescent snobbery that defines certain controversial articles and develop a more mature, responsible attitude towards the encyclopedia. so far it's rough going, but still" That is not "engaging in discussion". It is a personal attack on other editors that don't happen to agree with him. Mathsci (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC) For goodness sake, in no way is that a "personal attack." Egads. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I find it quite hard to interpret the words "pugnacious adolescent snobbery" as anything other than derogatory. Mathsci (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC) And I find it hard to see what there is that's either "personal" or "attack[ing]" in ludwigs2's comment. Which surely is the point about a would-be "personal attack." You folk are grasping at straws here. Instead of all this fuss, why not deal with the arguments? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Comments by Chzz Sheesh, that's long. Forgive me collapsing it. The arguments on what is/is not 'appropriate' re. certain images on certain pages will go on forever. There's some non-collegiate behaviour on the part of several editors, but that'd be better handled via an RFC/U or whatever. I can't see any admin action as appropriate at this time. If I'm wrong, can someone cut out the tl;dr and just say "X should be blocked for Y and Z". Otherwise, feel free to continue the eternal arguments on the article talks. ANI is not the right place to discuss content/consensus. Nor is it the right place to discuss vague ongoing concerns with user conduct; if you can present a WP:DIFF/diffs, showing "XE did THIS which was WRONG according to THIS policy, please do so. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I have uncollapsed it following discussion on Chzz's talk page. This thread contains a proposal for a topic ban in an area not covered by discretionary sanctions, thus the topic ban requires community consensus, and cannot be enacted by a single admin. Also, conduct diffs have been provided in the discussion above, e.g. in this subsection. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC) OK, so: This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators [...] Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. - thanks.  Chzz  ►  04:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC) What is contained here and here should be enough to judge whether a sanction is warranted or not, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I see no evidence that the conduct by Ludwigs2 breaches any policies or guidelines - that's the key point here. The discussions re those images will no doubt go on forever, and of course anyone disrespecting prior consensus might present problems; however here/now, I see no evidence of that.  Chzz  ►  06:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Have you ever heard of WP:CIVIL? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Chzz, per Tarc above. I stopped at 142 diffs (and only posted a tiny portion of them). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Community Topic bans should indeed be discussed at WP:AN, not at ANI (here), according to the letter of the policy on community bans. But it wasn't me who started it here. If an admin deems it necessary, I have no objection to the thread being moved to WP:AN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The general practice has been that if a topic ban discussion arises from an ANI thread, it's left on ANI, but one started here from scratch should be moved to AN, where topic ban discussions are generally held. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Query Is it reasonable to say Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. An then on the sub page: If you have come here to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, please don't post here. Such objections have been raised before, and been given our consideration. If you have come here to protest against how people are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Wikipedia, please don't post here. That is not new either. I understand that people don't wish to rehash the same arguments again and again, however consensus does change (See GNAA AfDs for example), and singling out this issue as one that shall never be discussed seems both counter to Wiki-philosophy and likely to be effective only in stopping more thoughtful folk from discussing the issues. Rich Farmbrough, 11:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC). I fully empathise with the sentiment motivating those diktats but also have deep qualms about the way it's expressed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Rich, I never saw local consensus on this particular issue to matter in even the slightest. CENSOR has been very clear on this for quite some time. No "should not" adhere to religious... - a specific "will not". Thus, it's a matter of incorrect venue. No local consensus is going to suddenly change things to "hey, other than on the article of Muhammad, we act secularly". Thus, if you note, in that same infobox, it is noted where the proper place is to propose policy changes. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Side note, I think that box was hashed out during a few other non-secular concessions that never should have happened (till policy was changed to allow such - which it still hasn't been). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC) There is no contradiction. 1) directs image discussions to the sub-page as it tends to overwhelm discussion on the main talk page. 2) seeks to weed out the insipid "remove the images they offend me!!!" messages from IPs and WP:SPAs. Summation "Bring image-related discussions to the sub-page but don't waste our time with rote removal demands, come here with something intelligent to say". Tarc (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Well spotted :)) Of course it's not reasonable to say that. Basically, we are telling people, If you want to post about this, don't do it here, but "over there", and "over there" we say, If you want to post about this, don't do it here. This reminds me of certain customer service phone conversations I've had the pleasure of having, where each department says their hands are tied, and swears it's the other department that's responsible for fixing the problem. --JN466 10:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Jayen, that is so very not true. Though a particular editor DID make such a claim, that claim was a boldface lie. That editor did use the correct venue (Village Pump), made the proposal, it was deemed the proper place, it was !voted on, and simply put, he lost and then made up that ridiculous claim. Village Pump, or RfC then (with enough support) Village Pump. Worked before, working now. But not the article's talk page, where we cannot change policy. Don't believe everything you read - I didnt, and thus checked it out to find that the correct venues (as noted in the warning box on that talk page) do indeed work properly. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The only comment i have read on this issue is what Rich wrote above, and the wordings he quotes are correct. I had never really registered them, until he pointed it out. It seems quite extraordinary to me. There is even a STOP! sign in Arabic (and a "Don't feed the trolls" message assigning everyone wishing to complain to that category). --JN466 17:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Yes, but it is out of context, as it does not include the rest of the message that follows with instructions on where to address such concerns: "Suggestions for an adaptation of standing guidelines are offtopic on this page and belong on Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)." (both are linked on original). Thus, it is all covered with the proper way to deal with things. Let's say we wanted to blatantly ignore copyvio for the article on John Doe - would we (a) simply do so (or demand it done) or (b) suggest a policy change? What would be the correct venue for dealing with the needed policy change? (a) the article's talk page, or (b) Village Pump? While the snippet above doesn't accurately portray the whole meaning of that box, I'd posit that going to that page and reading it will indeed show that the box does address everything, including pointing people to the correct venue, where such issues (including for that article) have been properly addressed in the past, all sans "no, go back there" as a response. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Tarc has it right. The message isn't intended to stop all discussion (the MB of text we've spent on it over the last few weeks should make that patently obvious), but to point out that messages like "Please remove the images, they offend me" will not be given much consideration. To the present day, even after all of these discussions on at least a half dozen forums, I would suggest that that remains the consensus view. Resolute 16:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The key word here is "protest". If someone wants to mount a reasoned argument that amounts to something more than a slogan rooted, then there would be grounds for discussion. But if it is mere "protest", then it's fine to let people know that it's not likely to go anywhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Nomoskedasticity: that's a nice rationalization, but in practice that's not the way it works. Every discussion, no matter how reasonable or reasoned, is designated as an unjustified protest and dismissed/attacked on those grounds. Look at what happened to me: I'm an intelligent, reasonable individual, with a decent policy argument to make, and all I got for my efforts was endless endless amounts of circular reasoning and a bunch of editors hounding me through ANI like a dog. Anyone without my (formidable) intellectual resources could not have endured the page at all, so a claim that 'reasoned arguments' might be successful is pure fantasy. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Wow. Just...wow. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Tarc, if nothing else your snide edit summary rather confirms what Ludwigs2 is saying. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Er, no, it confirms nothing of the sort. This entire mess was precipitated by and is continued by one tendentious, disruptive editor; Ludwigs. I am simply amazed that someone has the balls to come to ANI and write shit like "thank goodness I'm such a genius or these wiki-bullies (his POV, not reality) would've done in a mere mortal long ago". It is beyond ludicrous. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC) And now I'm called the "fan club" in another snide edit summary, while Robert's also trying a similar tack. My goodness, you guys are, well, "smug" to pick a word you've invoked recently. Ugh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Don't worry Tarc, one day our intellectual resources will be as formidable. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC) @ jbmurray: I heartily agree with your edit summary: "enough of the snideness and smugness, please". However, we might not agree about who is being snide and/or smug. Bielle (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC) We might indeed. Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. I've never previously (to my knowledge) interacted with any of these editors. I've never commented on any of the articles at issue. And I'm not part of the dog's breakfasts that are the thread on the subpage of the Mohammed page and the thread on Jimmy Wales's talk page. All I do is I make a couple of brief comments on ANI and then on the RFC, and first I find myself frankly badgered on my talk page, and now I discover I'm labelled the "fan club." Please. This is extraordinarily unbecoming conduct, and directed against someone who's barely involved--indeed, who's about as uninvolved as could be, short of sitting in a cave somewhere. It's all extraordinarily unseemly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC) jb - it was my mistake for posting anything here. I just happened to notice the comment and responded to it thoughtlessly. sorry for the fallout; I'll leave now. --Ludwigs2 02:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Ah yes jbmurray, sorry that because you thought I was asking questions in bad faith (though the recent uninteruppted discussions on that images talk page would speak otherwise) that I was badgering you - especially because your initial and continued belief I am acting in bad faith created a situation where you ignored my most important question. While I didn't expect you to have a high opinion of me, I also didnt expect you to jump to an opinion about someone you hadn't interacted with. Some of the barnstars here[75] are exactly because I will go well above and beyond to help someone present their opinion as best as possible, no matter how much I disagree with them. As this would have (before I deleted it when he was blocked - but surely you can check it and his talk pages out yourself).[76] Or my efforts with Bad edits r dumb. Or changing things on Homophobia that I know are correct (to something more "watered down"), but are not supportable by the sources available in a way that matches Wikipedia's standards. I wanted honest opinions - you wanted to find fault in me asking. Is that my fault? Or is it yours for, without knowing me (or the depth of this situation), deciding what you thought of me and my reasons for asking? I suspect it is not my fault. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Robert, you are being disingenuous. I answered any questions you had. It's not my fault you didn't like the answers. My conclusion that you have not been arguing in good faith is based on my own interactions with you, and your reports to me of interactions with others. You may well have earned barnstars and gone marvellous things for the project in other areas, I have no doubt. May you continue to do so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Please bury this dead horse in a deep, dark hole At this point it is just being used by Ludwigs to troll...yes, troll, in the fullest "intentionally posting to provoke a reaction" sense of the word. Sorry if that rubs someone the wrong way, but there's no other explanation for "anyone without my (formidable) intellectual resources.... Chzz looked into it all earlier but didn't find anything actionable at the time, perhaps that'll change after this, perhaps not. Others have weighed in that topic bans need to go to WP:AN. We've long passed the point where this is going to reach anything meaningful here, so a call to the proverbial "uninvolved admin" to make the next call. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Most fully support - with a note to the uninvolved admin that much of the earlier conversations that precipitated this are now in the Muhammad/Images talk page archive. Reading that page (not the archive) now will not show the entire story from beginning to end. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Agreed, agreed. Those who brought this to ANI clearly haven't found the agreement they had hoped. There is no consensus on a topic ban. Time to close this down. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC) How about we leave determination of consensus to the admin who's masochistic enough to try and take this on? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I removed murray's archive, as he has made himself quite involved at this point. Tarc (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC) It's just an observation, but in almost 6 1/2 years of contributing to Wikipedia, I've noticed that editors who provoke strong feelings from other editors – pro and con – generating multiple threads of this size and polarity on the noticeboards, tend to, eventually, be indef blocked or even community banned. That's not a recommendation or a desire, simply a statement of probability based on empirical observation. Ludwigs2 might want to take that into account and moderate his behavior if he wishes to avoid that end result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC) This needs to run until resolved one way or another. If this behavior is considered acceptable then I will more than happily loosen up my own strict interpretations to the rules. I tend to go through everything I edit at least once to ensure that it meets the letter and intent of policies so that would make it much easier for me. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC) As far as I know, I'm uninvolved in this. I will wait at least 24 hours for any objections, but if there are no serious objections, i will read and close this sometime after 24 hours from now. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I'd prefer, as preventative measures are on the table, that an uninvolved admin does the final evaluation and close - whatever the results are. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Not relevant in this case. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Epilogue: Light in our darkness Changing the subject of the thread to something more positive, on User talk:Jimbo Wales I noticed that Jayen466, Anthonyhcole and I have agreed that it would be a good idea to use an image of the Night Journey in the section of Muhammad devoted to his depiction, with an improved text to accompany it. I would be quite happy to help creating that improved text (multiple good sources are already available) and to help selecting which of the images is appropriate. As I said there and on Talk:Muhammad/Images, I don't see any reason to keep the same number of images. The statements of Jayen466 and Anthonyhcole were short and direct: I was happy when I found them. Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Unarchiving

The previous discussion was not closed by an administrator, so I have restored the lengthy thread. (Partly this was due to Ludwigs2 resuming his activities on-wiki regarding images and related policy, after a brief lull.) Please could an uninvolved administrator reassess the voting on the topic ban (in case of doubt, I voted for a topic ban). If the discussion was inconclusive and there is truly no consensus, so be it. Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 has pointed out that Gimmetoo (talk · contribs) (not identified as an admin [77]) is an alternative account of Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), In view of the renewed activity of Ludwigs2 after a two day lull, a review might still be in order. Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you afraid of food poisoning? Hans Adler 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

??? Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What he means, Mathsci, is that trying to reopen a closed thread simply because I have entered a discussion (as is my right, until there's a consensus I shouldn't) looks more like a personal issue than anything else. I'll note also that this is maybe the fourth or fifth time over the last year or so that you've tried to get administrative sanctions against me, usually on topics with which you were not previously involved…

If there is a personal issue that you and I need to discuss we can do that in talk, unless you really want to do it here. But as Hans points out this horse is kinda dead. let's all just get back to editing. --Ludwigs2 23:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion has been reviewed and closed by an uninvolved admin. Tachfin (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week Risker (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The civility at Talk:pregnancy is descending further as in these edits by User:Dreadstar [78] [79] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked. Risker (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • After reviewing the page history, and especially considering that Dreadstar is an administrator, I am in agreement that Dreadstar's behavior was inappropriate. I support Risker's block. --Elonka 05:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur also. Calling people names is never appropriate, neither is using heated language designed to denigrate or enflame other users involved in a discussion. Administrators especially should know better. Repeatedly calling someone a "liar" does nothing to move a dispute towards resolution; it is unseemly for any user and doubly so for an administrator who is often expected themselves to make decisions regarding the behavior of others. --Jayron32 06:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Regrettable situation. Why was he blocked for a week? He's never been blocked before and I would have thought that it would have been for a lesser time period.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • If he requests an unblock and indicates that he has no intention of calling people liars anymore, the block could be lifted, and I would also support that. Alas, his first edit post-block was this, which is to repeat the same offense which got them blocked; do you suspect, based on that, that Dreadstar would stop calling people liars if it was a shorter block? --Jayron32 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I've been following the situation, and am in agreement with Jayron32. I too had questions about why a 1-week block was necessary, but upon a more detailed review, I support it. It's worth noting that at Talk:Pregnancy, Dreadstar attempted to close a discussion in which they were involved, used the "liar" language multiple times, then reacted to the block with a {{retired}} template, and (possibly) coming back in as an anon to post the same on their userpage (I see that the anon is now blocked as well). There appears to be more going on here than a simple case of one-time namecalling, so the 1-week block seems to be a reasonable course of action at this point. --Elonka 06:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a whole lot more going on here than you can see in a few hours of reading. An editor, also an admin, manipulated process multiple times to achieve his desired outcome, and further at times was not honest about the things he had said or aspects of the RfC. While an image in an article is not a big issue in my mind , honesty and manipulation are. Do not drag through the mud of implication an admin-Dreadstar who had no blocks, and who most of the time was exemplary in how he dealt with other editors, in his helpfulness and kindness, and lets not start creating a narrative around an editor based on assumptions gleaned from a long, convoluted RfC which followed on the heels of reams of discussion on an almost identical RfC. Further, actually the accusation had nothing to do with James beliefs, it had to do with an editor saying he hadn't done something when he clearly had. I didn't intend to get into this, but really, some of this goes too far.(olive (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

That may or may not mean anything, how can any of us tell if you don't present evidence and provide diffs as to your reading of the situation? That can be done without calling anyone a liar, n'est ce pas? The core issue is whether one does the effective thing in ending disputes of this nature (presenting evidence to neutral parties for review) or one does the harmful thing (resorts to namecalling and personal attacks). This situation actually highlights the problem with trying to resolve disputes by calling people liars: Let's say, purely hypothetically, (and I don't say that this is reality, merely a supposition for the sake of making a point) that Dreadstar's position in this dispute is the right one; that is Wikipedia would have been better off had Dreadstar's position been the one that prevailed. By calling the other party in the dispute a liar, what Dreadstar has done it ruined the opportunity for Wikipedia to benefit because it now makes it harder for the right thing to be done. Had he handled this the proper way, the correct side of the dispute would have prevailed. This is why civility matters; Not just for its own sake, but because when people defending the proper outcome act incivilly, it harms Wikipedia in that such incivility prevents Wikipedia from enacting the proper outcomes. In simpler terms; If you are right and incivil, the right thing never gets done because the incivility gets in the way. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules, it has to do with human nature: people don't like to agree with rude people, even if they are correct. --Jayron32 19:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, block is wrong. Someone who lies is a liar; if Dreadstar can show it, then he can say it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No, calling someone a liar does not act to move a discussion towards resolution. Even if it can be demonstrated that someone said something which it turns out was inaccurate, the act of namecalling is not, of itself, a productive means to move forward. He doesn't get to call people names no matter what he can "prove". Comment on the contributions, not the editor... --Jayron32 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayron. You confuse in your language someone who is generally polite and helpful with, people who are rude, people who call other people liars. I have experinced abusive language against me that makes Dreadstar's comment look like a ripple compared to a tidal wave, and that language was ignored by admins as if it was every day language I could point out right now multiple comments all over Wikipedia that cross the line in a big way, and which make Dreadstar's single worded comment seem trivial. There are fire lighting words in our language that can ignite us to defend, and there are ways of burying abusive words in language so it seem on the surface to be more palatable, but underneath is infinitely more damaging. Dreadstar seems to be standing by what he said and that in itself is a strong statement given his general propensity to be friendly and civil. People let go every now and then and say what they are thinking in the words they are thinking it. This seems to be what happened. Sooner we allow that and understand it when a block record is unblemished then ignore the festering abusive language and behaviours which harm other people day in and day out on Wikipedia. And is there anybody on this page who has not let go every now and then. A warning would have been as effective and appropriate per the admin in question with far less fallout. An admin's record, years long, has to stand for something and in this case it didn't. Wikipedia is not punitive, and a warning would have alerted Dreadstar and not put his back up in a situation which he felt strongly about. I'm afraid the block looked a lot like a punishment. I respect Risker, but think she made a mistake. And no this did not seem like the time for diffs and an explanation. If its needed and in a venue where that is appropriate I can present them.(olive (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

• • • • Hmmm. Assuming that he can, I'd give him the chance to prove it. Our policy on incivility clearly labels lying as uncivil. We call people sock puppets which is effectively calling them liars. It is only name-calling if it is untrue and gratuitous. If he can not prove it then that is another matter. Let's hear his evidence.
        ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • No, it would still be namecalling, and still be a bad way to resolve a dispute. Look, I have children, ergo I have fucked in my life (at least twice). That doesn't mean you get to call me a fucker. Same situation here. Even if it turns out that an inaccurate statement was made, and even if it was made intentionally, you don't get to call people names. There are ways to proceed which reduce tensions and gain consensus, and calling someone else a liar is not it. --Jayron32 06:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Hey, having fucked twice, that's not bad for an administrator! Congrats--I hope it was worth it. I have two as well, and man! they're expensive and a strain on the lower back. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Now we're just paraphrasing Robert Benchley. As for me, no children, though it's pleasant enough to go through the motions. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I would respectfully disagree, Seb. I would think that if Dreadstar were correct, the proper method is to come here, bring diffs demonstrating the issue, and ask for extra eyes to help the problem. Baldly calling someone a liar is neither appropriate nor helpful. I believe that there are enough ways to demonstrate issues with a given editors edits without being inflammatory. If Dreadstar has evidence of prevarication when it comes to wiki editing, bringing the appropriate diffs will almost certainly bring the "wrath of ANI" down on the editor in question. -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • He was advised to point out that the user was "repeatedly incorrect". Is that now coded language for "liar," and will a future instance of saying that someone was "repeatedly incorrect" lead to a block? I just want to know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Don't act obtuse. If you find a statement is incorrect, provide diffs or evidence which show the statement is incorrect. Don't call people names, and ideally don't comment on people, comment on actions. Why is that hard to understand? --Jayron32 06:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Seb, I would say that there is a difference between coming to ANI and saying "We are having an issue with editor X. Please look at the following diffs in which editor X has violated the following wiki principles…" and saying (anywhere) "I say editor X is a liar". Even if someone first said A and then B, it is possible that they changed their mind. Focusing on the content (the violations) and not the editor (the violator) is pretty much always preferable, is it not? -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • • • • "you have been repeatedly incorrect" is commenting on the person (as is "(you) don't be obtuse", by the way). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Seb, I've never called you "obtuse". Please check the attribution of the edits (they are coming in fast and furious, I know ). Yes, "you have been repeatedly incorrect" comments on the editor as well, but it is still less inflammatory than saying "you are a liar", and asking for an impartial third opinion, and bringing supporting documentation, is better, at least in my opinion, than unsubstantiated personal attacks. -- Avi (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • • • There's a significant difference between saying that someone is making incorrect statements, while giving evidence to prove it, and calling someone a liar without any evidence. I support this block. WP:CIVIL is a key behavior policy.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: The block is for making personal attacks, not for violating the civility policy. Risker (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. The section heading is "Civility", so I made an assumption. I tend to think of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as being so closely aligned that they mostly cover the same ground. Either way, calling someone a liar repeatedly is outside of community norms.   Will Beback  talk  07:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So one can personally attack another civilly? Interesting... --Jayron32 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I am pointing out that the block was under WP:NPA, a more stringent and clearcut policy than WP:CIVIL. Risker (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You see my point now, Jayron? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen and understand your point all along. I disagree with it. Merely because I see your point doesn't mean I think it is correct. --Jayron32 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know that. This is where I have problems with this civility-blocking anyways. I don't see "liar" as an attack, esp. not when it's potentially true. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar should not have used the words "liar" and some form of block/warning was in order. Risker's block, however, seems precipitous; she has subsequently expressed her bemusement at Dreadstar's sudden retirement. Underlying this episode and the report here by Doc James (without informing Dreadstar), there were (and still are) unresolved issues concerning the legitimacy and timing of the present RfC on Talk:pregnancy in the wake of the very recently closed previous RfC. I would not be surprised if this results in an ArbCom case (for conduct and procedural reasons, not because of actual issues involving images). Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you see "bemusement", Mathsci. I am saddened that Dreadstar has opted to retire. To me the key issue was Dreadstar calling Jmh649 a liar because he believes that Jmh649 has a different opinion than Jmh649 professes. It is a straw man argument, to start with, as it has absolutely nothing to do with resolving the issue at dispute; what Jmh649 believes is irrelevant. What is relevant is the position that each editor takes, and the policy-based reasons for their position. One can misinterpret policy, but one cannot "lie" about it. Risker (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You wrote on your talk page, "Nonetheless, I know that Dreadstar has done a lot of positive work in the project, and I am saddened that he feels he needs to leave." I took that juxtaposition of phrases to represent bemusement; I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I have not condoned the use of the word "liar", but thanks for this further clarification. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me from the original comment that Risker is saying they feel their blocking Dreadstar was justified but are saddened that Dreadstar decided to leave as they had done a lot of positive work for the project. I don't see how that's bemusement. Im fact, I think it's fairly common admins feel their blocking was justified but are saddened if the person blocked decided to leave whether as a direct result, or as a contributing reason, except perhaps when the person blocked is the sort of person a lot of people were hoping would just leave rather then continue down a path likely to lead to an indefinite block or even a community ban.Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• He had never been blocked, wasn't given a warning and wasn't advised of this thread. This doesn't seem right.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh that happens here sometimes... :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• According to the policy on personal attacks, particularly What is a personal attack, an accusation isn't necessarily an attack. An attack may be "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users."
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bearean, given that Dreadstar accused Jmh649 of lying about his own (Jmh649's) personal beliefs, and he did it not once but twice, I don't think there's much here to be "proved". Risker (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is "son of a bitch" [80] (in the edit summary) [81] a personal attack? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• A one week block for civility, hmmmm... that may be unprecedented, but its now a precedent, so everybody play nice of you'll have a week off to think about your naughtiness....LOL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Even though I think civility should be expected of everyone on this site, I don't particularly like the idea of blocking an established contributor for a whole week just because he called someone a liar. Yes, it was quite rude, and Dreadstar should have known better. But still, it's a very lengthy period for something that strikes me as relatively mild. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that per above, the block was for violating NPA not civility. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but making personal attacks is a form of incivility. I don't think it really matters which policy is cited. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well not everything incivil is a personal attack. Arguably all personal attacks are incivil, but there is a reason why we have a seperate policy against personal attack. Related examples, making a legal threat is arguably always incivil as well as is outing, harassment and death threats. There's IMO a good reason we would nearly always say on ANI someone was guilty of one of those rather then simply being rude or guilty of incivility (and death threats isn't even a seperate policy), it helps to be specific on what the problem was. (I mean if you want to push it, edit warring, vandalism, basically anything blockable could be considered incivil, it would be rather confusing if all we ever talked about were people being rude or incivil.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Remember, I said "a form of incivility", not "synonymous with incivility". But I understand where you're coming from. In my mind, it doesn't really matter what you call it. A spade is a spade. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, my point is in you original comment you say 'though I think civility should be expected of everyone on this site' which misses a key point that while we expect civility, we particularly expect certain things like people don't make personal attacks, not simply because these are incivil, but because they can cause particular ill will. (Even more so with outing, harassment and death threats.) I'm not of course saying all personal attacks are the same. Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Apropros or nonapropros, and aimed as it is at AfD, WP:LIARLIAR might be worth a read. FWIW I say good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem with calling someone a "liar" is that lying means intent, and it's very hard to be certain about that wihtout getting inside the person's head. That's why "inaccurate" or "not a fact" or whatever are more appropriate to use, since these things are much easier to demonstrate.

    BTW, my favorite circumlocution for correcting a Very Important Person who says something patently stupid comes from The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle: "Regrettably, that turns out not to be the case." Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  Calling someone a liar is only "relatively mild" when you compare it to some of the worse stuff that editors get away with here. It is not actually "relatively mild" in terms of what would IRL be considered civil discourse; indeed it would be grounds for a very strong rebuke indeed in most areas of debate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly. It is mild relative to some of the nastier diction editors have used to describe each other without getting anything more than a reprimand. I certainly don't condone anyone calling someone else a liar, but I don't really support blocking a long time contributor with an otherwise spotless block log for a whole week because they called someone a liar. At most, I'd support a 36 hour block for making a personal attack. I don't know, I guess I'm just more lenient than the average person. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• If you have an environment which is not punitive, and in which our purpose is to keep good editors working we must apply what will accomplish that in the best way. An editor with a clean block log was pushed for some reason to use language (liar) he probably never has before. What does one do in that situation. What action will accomplish the best result, to move past the frustration or to punish. I'd suggest that one talks to the editor. If I had a child, and I do, who was "good" but who behaved every now and then in a way that needs help, I can tell you that that human being benefitted from the act of good faith which I extended when I talked it out but did not punish. And I believe that kind of action created the strong young woman I have today. I'm not saying anyone in this situation is a child. But human nature is human nature. (olive (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not therapy.

Admins are not "pushed for some reason to use language" which they otherwise shouldn't use. Admins should be in control of themselves when dealing with other editors. This isn't the first time Dreadstar has made personal attacks.[82] Further, he knows that accusing others of being liars is a personal attack:

• .. you are accusing other editors of vandalism and being liars. That's not only uncivil, it is a personal attack. If you continue making such accusations, you will be blocked. Dreadstar † 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[83]
• Also, there is no excuse for incivility, even if you feel you were "attacked or feel attacked". Dreadstar † 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[84]
• You're in charge of your own actions and you cannot place blame on others for what you do. [..] Dreadstar † 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[85]
• Yes, I undersand the situation, but Yami was uncivil in calling you a liar, that's the point of the diff. A civil response would have been to say that you were mistaken and explain why, calling someone a liar is personalized instead of being directed at content and actions rather than people. Dreadstar † 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[86]
• Provocation is no excuse for incivility, no matter what the provocation is. [..] Dreadstar ☥ 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[87]
• Comments such as that, this, this and this are uncivil and cross the line into personal attacks and will lead to your being blocked. Dreadstar † 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[88]
• Accusing a living person of being a "liar," “fraudulent” and “disingenuous” as you did here does indeed violate WP:BLP, and forgive me if I don’t repeat the violation by quoting your exact wording. [..] Dreadstar † 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC) [89]
• I'm sorry, but it is indeed bad faith for you to accuse other editors of being "disingenuous" and claiming that the reasons they gave are just "ridiculous..excuses" to hide the "real" reason behind their objections. Not only bad faith, but a personal attack as well - you're in essence calling people liars, that's a blatant personal attack, period. Again, I strongly recommend you not make further comments about editors and restrict yourself to commenting on the editorial content of the article, per the Wikipedia Policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you persist in attacking other editors you will be blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) [90]

He's told me to "fuck off".[91] Yet elsewhere he has set the threshold for personal attacks very low.[92][93][94]

In 2008, Littleolive oil posted a comment about an admin who had called Dreadstar a liar, and at that time she said:

• No editor or administrator should consider himself judge and jury as in these opinionated comments: “You are a liar and serial copy right offender” [..] Judging another editor, and then based on that judgment assuming that that this now gives one the right to name call and threaten can only cause escalation of the initial problems. [..] I would like to suggest that an administrator must show better judgment - must be able to clearly understand an individual judgment is opinion and not fact. At no time by our own standards on civility, are name-calling and threatening even remotely appropriate. An administrator who thinks that the personal analysis and judgment of a situation gives the right to treat another editor in a way that is less than respectful might consider taking a break from such situations for awhile. [95]

In short, Dreadstar knows that calling someone a "liar' is a personal attack and that editors making personal attacks may be blocked.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The comments above are mine. Don't attribute them or the ideas there to anyone else. I could easily put together the same kind of 'script' on anyone else including you, to show that you should have known something or should have behaved in a different way than you did.You've missed my point but I'm not surprised. And I chose not to bring diffs here, not to turn this into a quid pro quo environment. I'm sorry you didn't do the same. (olive (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

• Recommend closing thread by uninvolved party. Several have made good points - particularly Jayron's excellent point and Will Beback's well-researched and diligent list of comments above. As no further admin action is forthcoming, I recommend that this thread be closed.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree this should be closed. You seem to be suggesting by supporting Jayron's comment that diffs should have been presented against Doc James. I didn't want the mess, know this is much more complex than presenting a few diffs and didn't feel this was an RfC or arbitration where one set of diffs spawns another and another and so on. I'll note that Dreadstar has never suggested he wasn't uncivil he simply said that what he said was true, and stood by that claim. The comments and thoughts posted here on this are mine, and in no way reflect how he may or may not be feeling about this. I'll note also that Will's comments lack context which might or might not make a difference in how they are viewed. I stand by my comments and in the pertinence they have to this situation. (olive (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

I think the key point is Dreadstar clear knew his or her comments were not only incivil but personal attacks, and as he oor she f course also knew, as any admin should, that personal attacks are not tolerated on wikipedia. Trying to defend against a block for personal attacks by saying they are the truth and you're getting blocked for saying the truth, is not on, and frankly a little silly if you yourself have in the past acknowledged that what you're now saying is an unacceptable personal attack that will result in a block. Perhaps Dreadstar has since changed his or her mind but it does at least illustrate that they once understood and agreed with their block. I do agree an uninvolved user might as well close this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean in your comments, but let me say that the incident above does not even remotely resemble this one and was abusive in the extreme. The comment was taken our of context of the situation and the case. Further, I suggested and still do that an editor with a clean block log might have done well with a warning. Will posted his comments out of context and is getting the result of that, misunderstanding. I'm not on trial here and have right to my opinion on this as does every one else here. I'll add that I know more about this than most having been involved in this article and know the players from other arenas, and for that reason my opinion may have a different slant than some- not better or worse, just different. I 'll remind you that Dreadstar in the comments I've seen at least, has never commented on the appropriateness of the block. Yes this should be closed.(olive (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

This case has been marked as resolved.(olive (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

Problematic behaviour

I am reporting KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for problematic behavior, repeated violation of WP:SOURCE, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. I understand that this is a new user but I have tried everything and assumed good faith. The problematic article is Michael the Brave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

• As it can be seen from the talk page, I have tried to explain several times why the changes this user wants to introduce are not appropriate: [96]; [97]; [98]; [99].
• All responses were confusing (3 km long and not refuting the central point) and in almost all of his comments derogatory remarks and personal attacks. Ex: [100] and in all previous links.
• I have tried to inform this user of all the problems on his talk page (since it is a new user): [101]; [102]; [103]; [104] but this only aggravated the problem..
• I have talked about this problem with another editor on my talk page also and easily reached an agreement [105].
• I have talked to an administrator [106] but no solution has been provided.
• Also I don`t want this to be a bad faith accusation, but since I saw the IP address of this user and the articles he edited, I am wondering if this user is connected to User:Stubes99 since his IP address has been 84.0.xxx.xxx, 84.1.xxx.xxx and 84.2.xxx.xxx. [107]; [108].

The point is that all this edit warring and the removal of referenced text before is not a big problem but the fact that he refuses to respect the WP:SOURCE and the need to "correct" this article to reflect (I quote) facts has no direct connection to my personal opinion, since these were facts long before I was born :) and to tell the "truth" which he isn`t giving up. [109]. Adrian (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Dear" Adrian,

you're wrong again, since my registration is really has no connection to any other account banned in the past or so, if the "firm" will ban me, don't worry, my next username will be KIENGIR2. Furthermore, I will nor repeat myself. Anyone, who deals with a little bit history, can easily understand my claim an understand THE PROBLEM (after you, it had to told unfortunately 40km long more times, but still you don't get it). Facts are facts. The claimed changes are obvious. If the page remains so, itt will mislead users. If you "reinforce" a falsity with an unreliable source, it can't be taken as a good aim. If you pretend you are a victim and you identify the other who wants only correct mistakes cannot be held longer, it is also not a good aim. You can't provide reliable and valid (contemporary) source, because it not exist. The page also admits this fact in a later section, thus the page is self-controversial, etc. I am sure, Wikipedia policies were (is being) formed) to serve the "good". Thus Wikipedia can only thank me I do so many effort to have a truthful, valid encyclopedia. Otherwise I think something is wrong, if evidential facts are denied. The agreement you made with an other editor was a good beginning, but you applied it only one, instead to correct the all three statements. This debate has elementary importance if can we present anything that has no (contemporary) source (using the the designation "Romanian" in an anachronistic way), or stating an union (as well a false designation used by a more hundred year later histography and having only a formal meaning by it's own desired interpretation, but never had a LEGAL form) although it haven't been accomplished the time then. This is an announcement for every user, editor, administrator, in order to emphasize the importance we can only STATE something (if it's not indicated as an other view or theory or equal) if it is correspondent with the contemporary EVIDENCE and since no counter-evidence or any proof exist that would prove it wrong (impossible). Consider could someone state "three Iraqi lands made an union in 4000 BC", altough the "Iraqi" is anachronistic, the term "Iraqi" is missing and never been used in contemporary evidence, they haven't made an union (and missing as well from contemporary evidence), but i.e. a millenia later someone would interpret the leadership of Sumerian lands as the precursor of modern Iraq, and most of it's national and other international works would refer and use this concept and would consistently citate it. If we are no in a joke site, it cannot be afford. Thank You for (hopefully) understanding it.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Kiengir ... I haven't looked at the rest, but did you honestly just suggest that if the community either WP:BLOCK or WP:BANS you, that you will intentionally and willfully WP:EVADE a validly-imposed block? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The really regrettable thing here is that at least some of the content-related points Kiengir has been making appear to have a certain amount of merit. If he would only assume good faith and work collaboratively with others (as opposed to being confrontational, condescending, and paranoid), he could make valuable contributions here. A sad waste of talent. It looks like we may have to manage as best we can without his assistance. — Richwales (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that User:KIENGIR obviously challenged some data from the article after which I added 3 reliable references to the article and 2 more on the talk page(If needed I can find more references) and he still wants to "correct" the article to reflect the "truth". From WP:SOURCE - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.. I am not really interested in personal attacks he made, but on the long run, and looking at this problem from all sides, this kind of behavior can`t be ignored and that is the reason I have written this report. Adrian (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I will answer all of your questions:

->Dear BWilkins & Blackmane (his message can be read on my talk page)

Continously accusing me about personal attacks, etc. and last but not least accusing me with a kind of "(post) sock puppetry" is not the reperesentation of the "good faith" principle, regarding Adrian. The claimed changes were not revolutionary, but necessary and this all kind of mess could be avoided if Adrian wouldn't tried to make a provocation of discrediting everything and pretend no understanding, just speaking about rules and policies. This was the cause, this was not a "collaborative work" from his side. I can only suggest he felt itself ashamed about so big slips the page are peresent, and better continued to accuse me about behavior than be calm and find a real consense (later someone on its tak page convinced him about some necessary changes) If the citations Adrian added are regarded RELIABLE although they are not this case (only reliable for that today's histography speaking about union, but UNRELIABLE if we see pure history and contemporary evidence), then there's some problem with the policy and rules I think. However this case will be a good precedent. The "bad faith accusation" was awful from Adrian, since this kind of IP address is used by approx. 3 million people in the country, since the ISP distributes a random generated address to every users who connect. That's why I made this kind of irony, assuring everybody I am not the one who would alter or hinder it's true identity!

->Dear Richwales

"The show will go on", I will always try to do my best, and keep all policies and rules, but if somebody consistently discrediting facts and evidence, then I have no choice....I have to make all efforts in order have a good, realiable encyclopedia, otherwise I would deny myself. Regards (KIENGIR (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

I am sorry but accusing me of bad faith and "not being calm" (especially from you) at this point is just ridiculous. Repeating again and again the WP:SOURCE has no sense anymore since clearly you don`t respect it. Again and again you are using wikipedia as some kind of forum. Wikipedians don`t use wikipedia to talk with people about their opinion on some matter but facts that can be checked at any time. Since this discussion is always going toward "the truth" some user believes, I am asking for an administrator to review this and solve this problem.Adrian (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There are established dispute resolution procedures on Wikipedia. Vowing to wage an endless "edit war" in defence of truth is not one of these established procedures. Deal with these problems as the content disputes which they evidently are; direct and restrict your comments to the issues and not to personalities; and find and propose high-quality reliable sources to support any proposed changes or additions. The fact that you're sure something is true is not good enough here; you've got to verify it with suitable sources, so that other people can confirm that it's true and don't need to take your word (or the word of any of us) for it. The reason people are complaining about you is not because of any conspiracy by the Wikipedia "firm" to suppress the truth; it's a matter of your conduct, not the content as such. The show will indeed go on, and it would be nice to have it go on with your assistance, but that is only going to happen if you respect the established procedures and work with others in a constructive manner. — Richwales (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh Adrian, you're funny thinking you repeat the same arguments cannot be held longer...about your "bad faith": everyone can see the part your first reaction: "which is not an accurate statement as that the unification of the three Romanian principalities. " THIS THE POINT!!! You agreed at the first time the unification is not an accurate statement, but THOUGH instead to have a good faith and resolve the problem, you REINFORCED the false allegation with more citations can be regarded in a point of view a verifiable source, but cannot be accepted because it is announcing an obvious lie. If you really had a good faith, you wouldn't do that. What a nice coming out! Ooooops...and you try to play again the "personal opinion" card, although this case as well it has no direct connection to the hapennings between 1599-1601 :) Verifiability is important but since you could citate any web page with any statement, their content cannot be accepted always valid. Sorry, you are caught heavily...Try harder next time! From now on everybody can think about is is really the "wolf wanted to eat grandma", or maybe the opposite is true? Is it really somehow paranoid? Dear Richwales, we could not call it a real edit war since I have stopped editing on my own will for a period the case discussed on higher level. I hope you can understand, regarding Adrian's behavior he is really suspicious why will he reinforce something he as well do not agree...Finally again about verifiability: I think is not good, if any kind of false statement could be advertized in an article because there are "verifiable" sources announcing them, without PROOF, and it should be held as long as the true statement we don't present a source again, if claiming this source is enquestionable, because this case we should present a counter-evidence of something NEVER happened, although the normal way we have to have a PROOF on what really HAPPPENED. This case is not an easy case! Consider if many sources state: "At the times of Michael The Brave purple frogs have fallen from the sky", then this statement should be advertized so long you don't present a source "fulfilling" Wikipedia's rules would say "The allegation at the times of Michael The Brave purple frogs have fallen from the sky is wrong"???? Normally such obvious counter-citation/reference won't exist, because it is never needed in a normal society...(I have to repeat, if we are not in a joke site) So long we won't present a citation about Michael The Brave haven't made an union, despite all of the contemporary documents and 400 years of research were unable to prove it will be regarded as automatically invalid??? In a normal jurisdictonal case, the one who accuse HAVE TO prove it's theory, if the correspondent and contemporary evidence proving it's opposite! In this case, Adrian have to prove a union was made (although as we could see he don't even believes in it, and can only present citations reinforcing a falsity), for that he should provide contemporary documents reinforcing him. So long the word union/join/etc. cannot be used on the page (and the fact the false information was present on the page EARLIER, has really no effect, in this case it is IRRELEVANT) I ask all adminsitrators, editors, users to really think and concern about this kind of problem, otherwise the encyclopedia's content will not be reliable, and most of the average people just read wikipedia and not verify every statements and it's sources, de facto they would mostly accept what is presented) Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

Kiengir, no, it's not about proving anything. We are an encyclopaedia - we reflect what the best sources say. You are right that sources which are low quality should be avoided - the article should be using good quality academic sources. However, if good quality academic sources say that it rained purple frogs, then that is what will go in the article. If there is a difference of opinion between scholars (some say the frogs were blue), then the article should reflect the difference of opinion between scholars. I note that you said at one point "All of the statements I mentioned here can be citated IF NECESSARY, but the reality and the truth is independent of simple citations" Actually, no. The rules of Wikipedia are very clear. You must provide sources. Go back to the article talkpage, and cite the sources that support a different interpretation of Michael's achievements. Then all the article editors can discuss how to include this new information. If you do not cite sources but continue to assert that the whole world knows different to all the sources currently in the article, all that will happen is that you will be blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How bleak procpects....I think the world as well existed with all of it's evidence before any citations or source were provided, or before any scripts were born, but all right, I see. Then Wikipedia is about a "citation-war", and then good faith or aim cannot be guaranteed from any side because they will say "I could present a citation supporting my statement"...This is not a solution. Then only a good lobby would decide what is presented, dependent of the number of groups, supporters, editor's, adminsitrator's faith....then it is a kind of democratic thing....However history is not nothing to do with "democracy". There are facts and evidence you can prove, or cannot prove, and these are independent's of other views. A have finished this discussion, will not make further comment, but the "citation-commando" will start :D Bye(KIENGIR (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

Unnessecary deletion of redirects

Drmies(talk, contribs), has deleted two redirects that I have created, "Etlon John" and "Niktia Kruschev", stating that they are implausible. I believe that they iplausible typos, and request that they be recreated. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for notifying me. You're awfully involved on the drama board for such a new editor. Is there no more work left in the smithy? Drmies (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• BusyBlacksmith, just a note - it is interesting to me how you created your userpage with a single userbox/image at first, just like these two socks of Spotfixer, and then built on it later. You're also quite active on this board right off the bat, just like some of his socks were. Coincidence? Calabe1992 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah that's the nice thing about ANI. There's always someone who knows more. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Isn't that the blacksmith who wanted to call the FBI a while ago, and have somebody arrested? This is all as implausible as those redirects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Taken to SPI. Calabe1992 22:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I assure you, I am not a sockpuppet. It's funny, I just watched Being John Malkovich too. I have no idea who Spotfixer is. I just like discussing issues here, nothing special. Susupicion is suspicion, I take no offense. A check will do no harm. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we need a redirect from Susupicion to Suspicion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bling Crosby? Seriously?--Shirt58 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Who won the Acadmey Award for his role in the 1994 film Giong My Way. –MuZemike 03:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed sock of User:Shakinglord. Fun Boomerang. Calabe1992 03:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia law #42: the person who believes everything is socking...is socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything, Wikipedia-style? LadyofShalott 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Vell, he's just zis sock, y'know? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It must be a Tuedsay. I never could get the hang of Tuedsays. LadyofShalott 05:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Given recent developments, are we still AGFing on the User:ChocolateWolf account, or do we need to reconsider that one too? 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as it hasn't edited recently. Calabe1992 06:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Back at his talkpage

Shakinglord is now back at his talkpage, asking for us to unblock Kaishu Tachibana, claiming it is his friend. I think this is way beyond us assuming good faith again, and I'm continuing to lean toward the ban I proposed below last evening. Calabe1992 17:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Also admitted to two other socks, and claiming a fourth account is another "friend." I've requested the three new ones to be added at SPI for now. Calabe1992 17:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To any administrator who reads this, please consider revoking talk page access. See the posts at the bottom of the page. Calabe1992 19:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're suppose to AGF. But he/she basically lost the community's trust of AGF by socking and denying socking. It also appears that he/she faked being a bot. I think the statement on his talk page, Yes. We often edit wikipedia toghether., is kind of funny because it doesn't appear true/appears to be another lie. When I performed two separate checks, the IPs that Shakinglord have been editing from have little to no edits, the one IP that did edit vandalized. If they really do often edit together, then there should be more edits. The other accounts present that did edit are basically VoAs, purely disruption accounts or have little to no constructive edits. Based on what I said, I'm not inclined to believe whatever he/she's saying. Furthermore, the group of people here, there are doubts they're even a group, do not seem to be interested in contributing constructively. Competency is also required to edit. I don't see that here either. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So the current SPI has been closed, and the "new" admissions have not been blocked as none of them have recently edited (one never has). But User:ChocolateWolf has a confirmed connection to the user and I do not believe at this point that what the user has said (about this being his friend) is true. Should we just be leaving this user alone also unless it edits again, or should the plug be pulled on this one as well? Calabe1992 14:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Shakinglord

Per this user's continued sockpuppet abuse and constant denial of it, I'm hereby proposing an indefinite ban. Calabe1992 03:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per proposal. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's better to make this official because that makes it easier for other editors to revert them and deny them attention. Hans Adler 18:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nothing really productive (e.g. article creation > vandalism-reversion) has ever came out of him. HurricaneFan25 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - but the frankly bizzare behavior of this editor leads to the conclusion he's WP:NOTHERE and that Wikipedia is better off without him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Claims not to be a sock, but then admits. Curious statement about sharing a sock account with another user. Nothing sounds right here. Glrx (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support; they seem to be a net negative to wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support: the less attention we give these individuals the better it is for everyone, including them. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• A little hasty methinks. Shakinglord only seems to have discovered the joy of drama relatively recently (pretty much a month ago today he started hanging around ANI), and up until then basically behaved himself. Leave it at indef and explain exactly what Shakinglord needs to do to get back into the community. As an aside, some of the above comments are pretty nasty, and people should remember that just because an editor is blocked that doesn't make him fair game for abuse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Cyrrhus, etc

I am here as I wish to make a complaint about a page move, Cyrrhus, Syria to Cyrrhus, and the manner in which it was carried out ( I'm not sure the best place to make it).
This page had been the subject of a request move (Cyrrhus, Turkey to Cyrrhus, Syria); this was resolved on 12th November (See discussion, now here).
On 14th November the page was moved again, without discussion or agreement, to Cyrrhus: this would have involved the deletion of the existing Cyrrhus page (a dab page), which was also done without discussion. One of the pages involved was labelled for a speedy deletion; when I queried this, it was ignored, and the page deleted anyway. I have contacted the editors involved but got no reply, and requested discussion without result, so now am bringing it here in the hope of getting an answer. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The requested move that I see here resulted in a third option, simply renaming to Cyrrhus to remove the geographical conflict ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The other place that was originally included on the disambig page is actually called Kyrros. Cyrrhus is clearly the primary topic and doesn't seem to need any disambiguation to me, and it seems in keeping with naming standards to just call it Cyrrhus and use hatnotes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the DAB in accordance with WP:TWODABS. There is no question that this location is in fact in Syria territory. But as you can see here, other historic locations in Syria do not usually have a "comma-Syria" in their Wiki titles. IMO, it is anachronistic to attach the name of a modern state to a Roman military HQ. Kauffner (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There were several options floated in the discussion but the request was to move to Cyrrhus, Syria, and that’s how the matter resolved itself. I asked if it was OK to close it, and no-one demurred.
Then (Kauffner) you took it upon yourself to move it somewhere else, without the courtesy of floating the idea first. And you presumably didn’t delete the Cyrrhus dab page yourself, but tagged it for CSD, labelling the deletion “uncontroversial”, which seems a little economical with the truth. And when I raised an objection with you, which ought to stop a CSD process, you ignored that and carried on, which I’d say is pretty high-handed.
Also, there are at least six places listed in category you’ve linked that use that format, so there’s nothing cut-and-dried about the move you advocated at all. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

All the others using that formula have multiple locations with the same name. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that it should matter, but I was not the editor who moved the talk page, as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The article had been moved as described from Cyrrhus, Syria to Cyrrhus, Syria along with the talk page on January 5 by Nedim Ardoğa[110], who reversed the moved on November 11 after it was found to be in error. On November 14, Anthony Bradbury moved the page from Cyrrhus, Syria to Cyrrhus where it currently resides. However the talk page was not moved. On November 15, Nyttend mistakenly moved the redirect at Cyrrhus, Syria to Talk:Cyrrhus with the edit summary Move title of talk page to match that of corresponding article page.[111] Later the same day I moved the actual talk page from Talk:Cyrrhus, Syria to Talk:Cyrrhus. [112] I don't think there is much more to discuss other than perhaps a lack of communication. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner:To be clear, Cyrrhus (the dab page) was tagged (presumably by you: "I deleted the DAB") for an “uncontroversial” deletion and move, which was done by an uninvolved admin. You also (presumably) tagged the talk page, which was picked up by another admin; when I queried that with you and him it was deleted and moved anyway (and as it was done in a hurry, and botched, it had to be done again (by a third admin (your link).

So, this “well, it wasn’t me” line is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think?

Elen:My complaint isn’t that K had no grounds for his opinion on the matter, it's in the way he went about it. There were five others in the discussion, none of whom took him up on his proposal the first time round, but he never bothered to check; he assumed he was right, and played the system to get what he wanted.

So this “all’s well that ends well” approach doesn’t really cut it; an acknowledgement that this should have been done better probably would. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally, an "It all worked out fine, but wasn't done as well as it could have been" situation does not require admin attention or intervention. Specifically, an editor being Bold and implementing a solution that is more in keeping with Wikiedia's naming conventions, MOS, etc than the initially proposed one, is fine. On both counts, complaining about it here is just wasting everyone's time - it really is time to drop the stick now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you don't see it, you don't see it; fair enough, it's dropped. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides, if you really want to bring the 'shouldn't have done that' in to the discussion, as an involved user you shouldn't have closed the move discussion. There were 2 users in the move discussion supporting a move to Cyrrhus and the fact it was not the original suggested move does not stop a consensus being formed on a move to Cyrrhus. I'm not an admin and I don't close moves but while more discussion would have been ideal I would suggest a close as a move to Cyrrhus was a fair call although a better idea would probably have been relist for more discussion and as a move to Cyrrhus. The only argument against such a move seems to have come from you and to be frank 'either move involves a deletion, and it makes more sense to go back to the original title than to delete the dab page' is not a great policy based argument as there's no reason why deleting an unnecessary disambiguation is wrong or undesirable. The only thing is perhaps the original title would be the default option if there is no consensus, but saying there's no consensus doesn't really influence any consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay….I was advised to drop it, and that’s fine by me; what I don’t need is a parting kick.

The page had already been moved back when I suggested closing, and no-one said “hang on, what about another options” though Kauffner (at least) visited the discussion after I did. So I don’t see what was improper about rounding the discussion off; it’s what the RM tag was saying to so.

And it would have been “a better idea ...to relist for more discussion”? that’s what I’m saying should have been done. So I’m not only being criticized for what I did, but for what the other guy didn’t do as well? Bloody hell! Moonraker12 (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an ANI issue any more so I'll reply on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues concerning capitalization of some music articles.

Resolved

 – this is neither the place to resolve content disputes nor discuss changes to the MoS. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing dispute involving multiple editors concerning capitalization rules. While six users, at various times in the discussions, have been championing the WP:ALBUMCAPS, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), and MOS:MUSIC standards and similar standards, one user (and at one point two users) wants to make "exceptions" to those rules. User:Ryulong disagrees with some of the standards, and thinks that pages such as Journey Through the Decade and My Best of My Life should be alternately capitalized from what's displayed here, in favor of "Journey through the Decade" and "My Best Of My Life"; reason being is that sources and media print the titles with the latter capitalizations. These capitalizations, however, conflict with said guidelines of ALBUMCAPS and such, as has been pointed out by other users involved. It's not so much Ryulong's disagreements in themselves that are disruptive, but the style in which they have been delivered. Ryulong has been routinely told to drop the stick about this, but has refused to do so and has refused to take "no" for an answer, or so to speak. Ryulong has started way-too-long discussions in two different WikiProjects about this: one in WikiProject Albums and an RFC in Manual of Style/Japan-related articles; those two links can be viewed for a lot of the important information. Although I donated input in both discussions supporting the guidelines, I decided that enough was enough, and I don't want to donate any further to them, because I had said all that I wanted to. Also, see this exchange on the Journey Through the Decade history log, as well as the talk page of that article, which detail two unsuccessful move requests for recapitalization purposes. These discussions are overly dramatic arguments about something as trivial as capital and lowercase words in titles. That's really all there is to it. The reason I'm reporting this here is because these discussions concerning such triviality and absurdity should be reasonably put to an end, and I don't believe that I alone have the power to do that. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This general topic, unfortunately, is where wikipedia finds itself in defiance of its own rules against original research / original synthesis. Rather than going with a title of something the way it actually is, wikipedia insists on imposing a "manual of style" to override the actual title if the two versions conflict. If a song is officially titled "Everybody Works But Father", it gets changed to "Everybody Works but Father" based on MOS - despite the lack of any valid source that says the actual title of the song has a lower-case "b". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS recommends a lowercase b in "but"??? --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Koavf (talk · contribs) it does,[113] and he wouldn't budge from that position. I'll ask him I've asked him to come here and talk about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate the heads-up. It's my understanding that the capitalization of "but" is contingent on the type of speech in which it is used and I have to admit that I get a little confused on grammar myself... In the case of something like the hypothetical Happy but Stupid, "but" should be lowercase, although it's uppercase in Age Ain't Nothin But a Number (note that "a" is lowercase.)See below It's really irrelevant how an artist/record label/etc. styles or capitalizes their own titles--that's the entire point of a style guide: to enforce consistency within our own publication. Note that all kinds of media routinely use all caps for their titles or spellings with symbols in the place of letters (e.g. Ke$ha/Kesha) and we ignore them. Should we also use the same fonts and colors as other publications? Where does it end? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay It looks like that Aaliyah song has been moved since the last time I moved it. Anyway... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt for Backtable to get me to shut up about something that I feel should be changed, because he and a few other editors disagree with my preferred outcome for an RFC I started for which there has been no prior input until he decided to sling the mud from our pit onto ANI. My goal for the discussion has been to eliminate the strictness of ALBUMCAPS when there is a clearly evident and universal capitalization scheme for a song and/or album title that does not match the current rules described at ALBUMCAPS. If I can provide reliable primary, secondary, and/or tertiary sources that show that Gackt's thirtieth single's title is parsed as "Journey through the Decade" (as I have done), why should the article be at Journey Through the Decade (aside from the fact that ALBUMCAPS says using "through" is incorrect)? To me, it seems entirely way too bureaucratic to say I cannot change a guideline because the guideline says I'm wrong. And once, again, Backtable, the move requests on Talk:Journey Through the Decade were not "unsuccessful". A "no consensus" close does not mean "one side has lost the argument".—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough I honestly don't know anything about some interpersonal conflict between you two users, but yes, that's exactly why you shouldn't move it to Journey through the Decade. It's frequently the case that titles are written with any variety in spelling (including deliberate misspelling), capitalization, font, typography, color, etc. Which of these arbitrary aesthetic choices should we honor and which should we not? What's wrong with imposing a consistent guideline so that readers can expect the same thing from article to article rather than varying wildly? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But if I have sources that consistently show that the accepted form in the media is inconsistent with our internal guidelines, why should the article be located at a title that is inconsistent with reliable sources? The uncapitalization of the word "through" on Journey Through the Decade or the capitalization of the word "Of" on My Best of My Life should be allowable exceptions, in my opinion. And what is wrong with developing case-by-case exceptions (other than the fact that editors will fight to the tooth to keep things consistent internally, even if it is highly inconsistent with external sources)?—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case here of using special symbols or non-standard search terms for an article title nor is it the case that we are proposing to rely on the primary source or those affiliated with it (such as the publisher, band, etc)., but rather what interdependent secondary sources use. We allow (outside titles) special symbols and grammar to be used for other items such as episode titles assuming the unicode can render it. This includes official naming schemes. For article titles, we primarily try to go with WP:COMMONNAME whenever possible which except for special circumstances like all caps or uNuSuAl CaSiNg, we do that because it is dijaring to the reader (or that's the primary reason that I've seen argued). That is not the case here. Capitalizing a word in the similar manner as the rest cannot said be dijaring to the reader. Finally, there is the issue of titles that are actually sentences. We would have the MOS directly contradict itself in this regard for titles that form sentences. I can't cite specific cases offhand, but I've worked with a number of such titles before.∞陣内Jinnai 02:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Except for extreme cases, or situation where graphic art consideration have overwhelmed typographical ones, we should always be prejudiced in favor of the titles used by the creators of an artistic work. Titles are, generally speaking, phrases not sentences, and should not be subject to the rules of grammar the way normal text should be, and certainly shouldn't be overridden by our own MoS, which is an accumulation of guidelines, not mandatory, and subject to changing consensus. If Sly and the Family Stone want to call a song "Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)" we have no business correcting their grammar. WP:COMMONNAME is also not always a good guide in these case, because people are as likely to call the song "Thank You For Lettin' Me Be Myself Again", which is correct in terms of its sense and phonetics, but is not the name of the song. Artistic creations are different, and we need to respect the artists' choices as much as it is possible to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been silently following the RFC at Manual of Style/Japan-related articles but remained silent due to being torn both ways on the issue at hand, however I must say that the "Except for extreme cases, or situation where graphic art consideration have overwhelmed typographical ones, we should always be prejudiced in favor of the titles used by the creators of an artistic work," comment above has swayed me to the "Journey through the Decade" and "My Best Of My Life" side. I've always viewed Wikipedia's policies of standardization of Japan's frequent use of absurd typography to be so that it's less jarring to English-language readers and fits in with the overall style of the English language, however after reading the arguments back and forth in this (and the previous) discussion, I feel that this should only be applied to more extreme examples. Or looking at it the other way, it should be fine to ignore the capitalization policies for very minor changes such as the ones that Ryulong is suggesting. As long as the typography doesn't go too far outside of reasonable bounds (admittedly subjective), I agree that titles should err on the side of the artist. -- purplepumpkins (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Those who believe the MOS is not serving us well in these areas should campaign to change the MOS rather than ignore it and carve out exceptions that may not actually be approved by the larger Wikipedia community. ElKevbo (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The MOS DOES serve us well, in general. But trying to impose our MOS on the titles of things is not appropriate. It would be like requiring Kleenex to be rendered as Cleanex, on the grounds that there's no such word as "kleen". Or to render iPhone as Iphone on the grounds that a proper title has to start with a capital letter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Do remember that Ignore all rules is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. Yes, the MOS should be changed - but until then... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is indeed the point of the MoS being descriptive rather than prescriptive. WP:IAR gives editors the opportunity to improve Wikipedia by attempting new and (hopefully) advantageous things, and, if they catch on, eventually the MoS will be updated to reflect the change. The tension between MoS and IAR is part of a deliberately creqated dichotomy, but it loses all meaning if editors take the Manual of Style as the be-all-and-end-all of formatting and follow it blindly and without thought, disallowiung any anount of (legitimate) experimentation. Such an attitude doesn't allow the MoS to be a living, breathing thing, and mummifies it in a way that was never intended to happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - User Backtable said "The reason I'm reporting this here is because these discussions concerning such triviality and absurdity should be reasonably put to an end, and I don't believe that I alone have the power to do that." I could be wrong, but I don't think an admin needs to close any discussions mentioned. I may have missed something but couldn't this be closed? I don't see any need for admin intervention. I didn't see Ryulong being disruptive, just persistent.--Rockfang (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This should be closed as it should never have been opened. It's a dispute on which guideline to use and there's been no edit warring or other disruptive editing, just heated debate from both sides.∞陣内Jinnai 07:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: all the IAR comments. I have attempted to use this in discussions (as seen at Talk:Journey Through the Decade). However, it seems that MOS-deifiers won't allow it unless there is a good enough reason, which is why there is this impasse that Backtable decided to bring to this board. In the original RM on J.t.D., GTBacchus made a very nice statement on how MOS has become unnecessarily ironclad here. As no wrong has been done, and no one needs to close the RFC I opened, I would say that that part of this discussion is over.

Either way, it appears that from the sampling here that WP:ALBUMCAPS is not what the "broader community" (as mentioned as a reason why ALBUMCAPS or MOS-JA should not change to allow exceptions here) wishes to do with song and album titles, but instead intends to keep the original artistic license on grammatical rules (unless there is absolutely a case of ambiguity). If there is truly a consensus for this, do we need to move this to the appropriate project talk page, or can the extended discussion here be used as the means to modify what are probably several (WP:ALBUMCAPS, WP:CT, WP:MOS-JA) project pages?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I had the ability to preemptively archive the discussions and put them in the blue boxes, or so to speak. Throughout the course of events, I was doing what I thought was necessary and said what I believed. I had no intention to cause any offense, and sorry about any that I did. I'm not that passionate about title anatomies, as I've been used to a particular way of doing things without giving it much of a second thought. I will be thinking about my comings and goings on Wikipedia over the next few days, and will hopefully be able to cool off. Again, sorry if I made any missteps. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a party to the debate, it would not have been proper for you to close them with the blue boxes, anyway.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have dealt with Ryulong quite a few times on English capitlizations of Japenese titles, but I am going to focus on his behavior and not the actual capitalizations. Recently, Ryulong started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#ALBUMCAPS about the capitalizations and not getting the consensus he wanted, he took his ball and WP:FORUMSHOPed to start a RfC at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles without bothering to tell either the Wikiproject or the individual editors who commented on his first topic about the RfC. This is just bad form when trying to reach a consensus in my opinion.

Some of his talk page editing can be seen as being WP:DISRUPTIVE and/or WP:TENDENTIOUS and that these discussions go on for way too long because Ryulong seems to have a need to reply to almost every comment in either thread while simply WP:REHASHing the same point over and over, almost to the point where it seems he is exhausting other editors into accepting his point of view. Aspects (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

My edits have already been labeled as not disruptive. And an inquiry on one page, followed by an RFC on another is not really forum shopping. I probably should have used the same page, but you very easily notified other editors of the other discussion, and now there's another discussion here that seems to be more definitive. Either way, I have broken no rules outright, as stated by much of the thread, and should not be penalized.

Regardless, Baseball Bugs, FormerIP, Koavf, Backtable, Jinnai, Beyond My Ken, Purplepumpkins, ElKevbo, The Bushranger, and Aspects; shall we discuss modifying the ALBUMCAPS/CT/MOS-JA guidelines to suit the better practice described here, on whatever proper forum that should be?—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight but I strongly believe that this is not the proper forum to discuss the issues related to capital letter in titles. I imagine there is an appropriate part of the MOS that deals with this and that would be a good place to start. ElKevbo (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Can we get this out of the kitchen please. Boys, go and play in the yard.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  The question is where is the yard supposed to be?—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Or the meter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. My granny would have said "you're not to old for a good hiding, you know," but I suspect that's not pc these days :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Oncenawhile

Please excuse me if I'm doing anything incorrectly in this report, as to my recollection it's the first time I've reported a user.

Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in disruptive editing relevant to a naming dispute involving two articles, History of the Southern Levant, and History of Palestine. On February 25, 2011 Oncenawhile moved History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine despite History of the Southern Levant being in place for over two years and functioning as the only name for the article which hadn't lead to consistent move wars, and with History of the Southern Levant being praised as a good name for the article.

After the article was restored to History of the Southern Levant, Oncenawhile created a new page called History of Palestine, copying most of the content of History of the Southern Levant, and merely changing a few details here and there. The disruptive editing began as Oncenawhile then proceeded to redirect multiple wikilinks from History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine. Here, here, here as well as here where he instead directed away from the History of the Southern Levant article to Ancient Israel and Judah. I spoke to him on his talk page, and informed him that I considered this disruptive editing, and that there were no problems with both articles existing, but redirecting links away from one and to the other in such a way was disruptive.

A few months later Oncenawhile did the same thing again by removing more links to History of the Southern Levant here and here and here as well as in two instances moving additional articles from History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine here and here

After I restored the original wikilinks, Oncenawhile wrote on my talk page, attempting to debate why Palestine was a better name than Southern Levant. After I replied that it would be better to discuss this on the relevant article talk page, he said due to my "refusal to discuss" the issue on my talk page, he had "reverted my changes" Drsmoo (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The community (or the AN/I cabal) might decide to take action here. But for allegedly long-term problems like this, WP:RFC/U may be a better venue, in case nothing comes of this AN/I. causa sui (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Drsmoo (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Drsmoo, your post above is misrepresentative. It includes incorrect facts, statements out of context, and neglects to mention key points.

• You neglected to disclose your authorship interest, as you were the editor who renamed the article to History of the Southern Levant in 2008. Your references to "the only name for the article" and "consistent move wars" regarding the original name of History of Palestine are misrepresentative. The article was stable under that name for seven years, until two isolated and immediately-reverted vandalisms in 2007 followed by the unilateral renaming which you carried out in 2008.
• You neglected to mention that you were blocked on 13 March 2011 for move warring re the article name. You also neglected to mention that the article had been stable following my February 2011 revert to History of Palestine for a meaningful period with numerous third party edits being made, before you began warring over the change.
• You made a highly misrepresentative statement re the current History of Palestine article, which you stated was built by "copying most of the content of History of the Southern Levant, and merely changing a few details here and there". Both the move and the content build were done slowly, with clear talk page discussion, and by painstakingly merging the content with the history section from the Palestine article. Discussion of this process took place over many months, and is recorded in the following places here, here and here.
• You neglected to mention that you partook in exactly the same practice in late March regarding swapping of links (rather than the better practice of simply adding a new link) and that our subsequent discussion on my talkpage which you linked to was cordial and mutual acknowledgement and understanding was reached between us immediately. And you have misrepresented my actions regarding the specific link changes you linked to. For example in this edit you linked to I removed a number of extraneous links, including to BOTH History of Palestine and History of the Southern Levant and in this edit you linked to I clarified a statement and removed an in-line link which violated WP:MOS
• Your final statement is again misrepresentative and places statements out of context to paint a picture. Your statement says "After I replied that it would be better to discuss this on the relevant article talk page, he said due to my "refusal to discuss" the issue on my talk page, he had "reverted my changes"", which bears absolutely no relation to the logic, cordiality and detail of the full discussion as recorded here.

If you wish to debate this matter further, please could I ask you to take more care with how you represent the facts in future. Perhaps in parallel we can get back to trying to debate the underlying substance of your editorial issue. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't responded to any of the accusations on here, you just immediately went and tried to make this about me. You replaced links from the original article to your new one over and over and over again, as the edits showed, I reverted your disruptive edits. Are you seriously coming on here and accusing me of doing what you flagrantly did because I reverted your improper edits? In addition it's blatantly untrue as I inserted a link to History of Palestine in the Archaeology of Israel article after you removed it. And two weeks with 18 edits is a "meaningful period" but over two years with hundreds is not? It is fine to have more than one article, but to try and replace one with the other in a way which avoids community consensus (for example, trying to discuss it on my talk page while avoiding the relevant article talk pages) is not. Wholesale removal of links and references to a long standing article is a clear cut example of disruptive editing. It is worth noting that Oncenawhile has also been cited for uncivil behavior on another noticeboard recently Drsmoo (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Drsmoo, I remain very keen to find a way to remove the emotion from this and move on, but you appear to be obsessed with making our interactions in to a long term WP:BATTLEGROUND (exactly as you did with the first user who made the mistake of being responsible for getting you blocked, as documented here).

Your post above is again misrepresentative, for example: (1) "it's blatantly untrue" (despite evidence here, here and here amongst others), (2) you make no reference to either my explanation that the articles in question related only to the concept of Palestine and not to the Southern Levant or to our immediate consensual resolution which I referred to above, (3) "avoids community consensus" (despite the detailed article talk page discussions I linked to above, e.g. here), (4) "avoiding the relevant article talk pages" (ignoring the explanation provided on your talk page that since you made the same changes across multiple articles it seemed sensible to try to centralise the debate; (5) "cited for uncivil behavior" (when you mean "cleared").

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend that you read the diffs you're citing, if you did you would see that the editor you referenced was in fact criticized for forum shopping and for not assuming good faith and told her accusations were untrue. In every single example you posted it was a case of me reverting your changes to the wikilinks. What you claimed is a blatant untruth. I reverted your changes. What you have done, has been to go around from page to page and methodically remove links to History of the Southern Levant. You made a talk page post on your new article, but no talk page discussion regarding any of the moves in their relevant talk pages, nor any talk page discussion of any of the changes of the wikilinks which you've made far and wide. Instead you tried to engage me on my talk page, which makes no sense as I am not heavily involved in any of those articles, and when I suggested that you instead bring it up on the relevant talk pages, you changed the names abruptly. This is not acceptable editing practice. Drsmoo (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't give two hoots about this dispute - however, this is a cut and paste move of content without attribution - so in it's current form most of that page should be deleted as an administrative rather than editorial matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your post. There was very clear attribution given on the talk page. Either way, the edit you've linked to is 8 months old - the article is completely different now having been merged with the history section from Palestine.Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is a nice addition, but the attribution must at minimum be in the edit summary. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. And please repair the attribution as described there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Questionable recent block

I was blocked by User:BlackKite following a questionable report [[114]] by User:Yworo, I was accused of block evading, which I have never done, and it is something I detest and would never partake in, instead of following protocol BlackKite was quick and happy to pull the trigger and block me without a second thought, Yworo also did not notify me that I was reported on the noticeboard, he also has a history of going overboard with warnings (IMHO). I believed there was a breach of rules on their part. Sheodred (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like you were blocked not for socking but for violating WP:3RR. It's not required that you be notified or warned for these reports; 3RR is a bright line. Are you arguing that you did not actually violate 3RR? causa sui (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• You reverted three/four (arguable) times, against two other editors and discussion on the talk page - that's enough to block on its own regardless of the 3RR bright line - and then a mysterious IP appears to revert twice to your preferred version, followed by a uni IP from the same area. So either the IP addresses are you, or as proved by the edits on 15-16 November you and the 143 IP are acting as one editor, which is meatpuppetry. Feel free to call us a number of things, but please don't accuse us of being stupid. Black Kite (t) 19:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Why bring this up now? These events occured over 2 weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yup, rightly blocked for 3RR, a rule you were already blocked for once ... it was extended because you WP:EVADED a valid block by editing with an IP after being blocked. Not sure what the problem is here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• The problem is that I did not edit anything under an anonymous IP, I accept the fact that I broke the 3RR but I did not engage in block evasion, I achieve nothing by bringing this issue up but wanted to raise the issue for the block that was allegedly for block evading not breaking the 3RR, I just wanted to clarify that, and if you looked at the contributions of the alleged IP(s) "or whatever I used", they were involved in articles I never got involved with, thats the reality of shared and anonymous IPs, which was obviously not taken into consideration when I was blocked (which was not for breaking the 3RR, that I would have accepted). Sheodred (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• You admit it was a valid 3RR block; certainly the 72 hours is appropriate; the dispute is about the anon IP and the additional 48 hours. The block has run, so no remedy (such as shortening the block) is now available. The issue is both moot and stale. Black Kite is good at recognizing ducks; perhaps he missed here, but it is not worth looking into now. If you hadn't engaged in edit warring, there never would have been a problem. Glrx (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Sheodred filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yworo. Glrx (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"We will make you fishers of men...fishers of men...fishers of men..." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we will leave it at that then. Sheodred (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Two minutes work would have shown you that the IPs you reported geolocate to two different hemispheres. You don't need to be a check user to do that. You're lucky you're not being castigated for a bad faith report. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, took longer than that actually, and I am still suspicious of the other two IPs that are within his "hemisphere" you failed to have mentioned in the above comment and I still retain my suspicions, if you have any grievances about what I did report what I did elsewhere where it belongs instead of posting here in this section, this is a question about a past-block relating to me, I already made my statement on the relevant page, the material you are dragging up here does not belong here, so kindly just back off, case closed. Sheodred (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOOMERANG. AN/I is not your personal Facebook Wall. In the future, keep in mind that edits like these are not acceptable practice. Badger Drink (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

This article needs more eyes. Quite simply, the editing environment is terrible, anyone who disagrees with the view that the article is fine, despite dedicating pages and pages to unchallenged WP:FRINGE material, is harassed, willfully misrepresented, and generally, everything possible is done to drive them off.

The article clearly violates basic Wikipedia policy, by failing to present the relevant mainstream arguments against the claims of tthe global warming denialists, instead presenting irrelevant material at the start (the structure is basically Mainstream scientists Claim X - with no evidence given for why scientists believe X, and then followed by huge numbers of quotes attacking X because of the hitherto unmentioned Y and Z, with the mainstream view on Y and Z unmentioned.) Indeed, the mainstream material presented is almost wholly irrelevant to the attacks made by the global warming denialists.

This article represents a complete failure of Wikipedia policy, only allowed to remain because enough people like that it pushes their POV.

Attempts to discuss this on the talk page basically result in WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT followed by the closure of threads, and insistence that people make their points all over again from the start. There is no possibility of any progress. 86.** IP (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just as one quick comment...isn't applying the term "denialist" to the scientists, in itself, POV? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. And I have to say it is mighty cold in the American Midwest, could someone please complain that a) manmade global warming has been notably absent here lately, or b) Al Gore should stop flying around in his private jet over us, bringing the snow. :) Kelly ^hi! 02:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Every time I see this article appear in the periphery of my Wiki-vision, I tend to let it slink by. It is an awful piece of contrived ugliness, categorizing a group of people based on their opinion on a scientific matter. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't even that: it categorises people on our opinion on their opinion on a scientific matter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a very interesting point. A brief review of the article leaves me with the impression that the entire structure is WP:SYNTH. causa sui (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Came across this via Jimbo's talk page and I share similar concerns. We could probably use WP:BLPCAT and cut the primary sourced material pending adequate sourcing (although I am still trying to find out if there is an "obvious point" I missed and actually this approach is acceptable). However that's not necessarily a productive approach and sure to simply cause fall out - perhaps garner some thoughts from BLP/N as to the best approach? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

From the standpoint of argumentation, BLP is always a useful avenue since of all our content policies it has the most weight behind it. But the issue isn't defamation of living people; it's neutral and verifiable encyclopedic presentation. For arguments based in BLP to stick, you'd have to convince people that categorizing professional natural scientists by their opinions on natural science is somehow defamation. No one is being accused of Holocaust denial and Global warming denialism doesn't yet carry similar social consequences, I'm afraid. causa sui (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are those who would disagree, as it has been suggested in the past, seriously, that "global warming denialism" should be made a crime - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

...of course that should read as it has been claimed that it has been suggested in the past, seriously, that "global warming denialism" should be made a crime. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• In the climate change case, Arbcom advised that "Experienced administrators and particularly holders of the Checkuser permission are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the Climate change topic area...". Please note that 86.** IP is such a new account, being first active on 8 October 2011. This account seems to be trying too hard, having already generated much drama at AFD, DRV, Jimbo's talk page and now here. Warden (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As a complete aside, WP:AGF. You're assuming that 86.** IP hasn't had a long history of editing under an IP previously, as suggested by the username. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I spat out my coffee a little bit at an editor being accused of "trying too hard". Good grief, we're now denouncing people for caring too much about Wikipedia. causa sui (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Typical dodgy tactic. An editor wants to remove some crap from Wikipedia- try to get them banned from the discussion with shadowy insinuations of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. Reyk _YO! 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tarc is right, and AndyTheGrump's observation is spot-on; this thing is a train-wreck, and it wildly violates WP:SYN by tying together a bunch of people with substantially divergent views under a categorization which is unique to Wikipedia (or sources which have cribbed it from here). We're supposed to be compiling information recorded elsewhere, not advancing new ways of grouping together people whose views differ from those of the dominant group. Simply splitting the list up into five or six different lists might be one way of fixing it, but then it no longer serves as a one-stop smear facilitator. Horologium (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly. Some of the scientists listed here may not be "against" the AGW science at all, but just have reservations about some of it. They don't belong in the same category as people who reject all of it. But once you can no longer bundle them all together and thereby inflate their numbers, you can no longer present the "AGW is a dirty greenie lie" movement as a coherent position held by a substantial number of reputable scientists. Since that is the purpose of this page, its owners naturally resist any attempts to make it conform with WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. If I were a climate scientist who'd merely expressed minor doubts about some of the methodology and found my name on a list of climate change deniers because of it, I would not be happy- the likelyhood that people's opinions have been misrepresented in just this way makes this list a WP:BLP concern as well. Reyk _YO! 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a precedent here. We once had a list article Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, which listed the great and the good (or anyone really) who were on record (or had been overheard at a cocktail party) saying that they didn't believe that the Stratford guy wrote Shakespeare's plays (or that they'd once read a piece in the New Yorker on the subject). We know have an article about the internet petition on the subject, and the 20 or so people that the internet petition itself lists as key players. This list needs some similar underlying structure - people need to (a) be famous and (b) have signed a petition/report/letter to the newspapers or some agreed level of confirmation that they hold the stated opinion. List articles need a tight definition if they are to work, and this one doesn't have it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a peruse of this article and my eyes bled. Is there any criterion under which it could be deleted? --Blackmane (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How about that it's a POV fork? One major difference between this and the Shakespeare stuff is that that's merely an academic debate, not a political one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's an obvious POV fork, not to mention a borderline BLP violation, but you try getting it deleted via AfD. "Consensus" is everything, my friend, even if it's a consensus of idiots. Black Kite (t) 00:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has already been to AfD - and kept. *checks* In fact it's been to AfD five times, and DRV twice. Let's see the results: keep, keep, keep, no consensus, (DRV endorsed), keep, (DRV overutrned to no consensus).- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The only reason 86 started this discussion here is because he just failed to get it deleted. But since this isn't an "incident" and doesn't require any admin intervention, why hasn't this discussion been closed? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Mughal Lohar

I'm about to take a real Wikibreak, I hope (if I can control myself), and would like eyes on this editor if not action now. Besides the sock puppetry and copyvio (including copying material today from other articles without attribution) they do not seem very interested in communicating and continue to refuse to use edit summaries despite frequent requests. Thanks. I'll notify them and see if they will communicate here. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

For reference: Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs). Curious as to the response we're going to get. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I'd done that, careless of me. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is actually what action do we take about this editor, seeing the latest comments at Talk:Aurangzeb#Copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got that article watched now too. I think all we can do if he carries on making such changes to it, under a serious suspicion of copyvio, is block him until we get some response from him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposing ban of User:Realhistorybuff

Due to gross incompetence, sockpuppeteering, and disruptive attacks. Nothing constructive is coming from him, and further edits will also likely need to be immediately reversed. Calabe1992 15:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks from The Pink Oboe

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by Jehochman, unblock request declined by Fluffernutter. causa sui (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Webhamster unblocked by Black Kite A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

... and reblocked by User:OrangeMike. Black Kite (t) 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The Pink Oboe (talk · contribs)

• Jeancey removes post from The Pink Oboe at RfD
• Reverted by The Pink Oboe; "who the fuck do you think you are. Don't you fucking dare touch my comments again"
• Reverted by SarekOfVulcan
• The Pink Oboe undos SarekOfVulcan's edit
• I revert the edit
• Off2riorob warns The Pink Oboe for 3RR
• The Pink Oboe reverts: "Fuck off Rob I can count"

Although personally I feel a block of The Pink Oboe would be extremely unconstructive in this situation, I'd like to see some admin intervention here. HurricaneFan25 18:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone also have a word with him about repeatedly swearing in edit summaries, three times today hes used the word f**k in edit summaries. The occasional one is undestandable/excusable but repeatedly seems unreasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Profanity isn't the problem, the personal attacks are. HurricaneFan25 18:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You choose the words you want to use to make a point and I'll choose the ones I want to use to make a point. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth did you think it would be a good idea, as editors involved in the debate, to be edit-warring (it had already been reverted twice) to remove comments made by another editor involved in the debate? A bit of clue from all editors would help tone down the drama. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Offensive and insulting commentary about other editors disrupts the process of building the encyclopedia by poisoning the collegial atmosphere of collaboration and mutual respect. The removed comment was inappropriate per and is correctly removed according to WP:NPA. causa sui (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What collegial atmosphere? This place is a hotbed of Machiavellian shenanigans, cynicism, racism, sexism, bullying, power struggles and more, all the vagaries of the real world are encapsulated here and these, to quote Rob, "volunteers" are made to adopt unnatural behaviour. Eventually it takes its toll. And that toll does not result in a "collegial atmosphere". --The Pink Oboe (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And comments likes the ones you made are actively preventing any kind of collegial atmosphere from happening. --Conti|✉ 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bollocks. It isn't like this because I said it is. It's like this because a lot of human beings are involved. Collegial atmosphere? never going to happen. It doesn't even happen in real world academia, it's got no chance of happening in the virtual world. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard this particular piece of circular logic a bunch of times now, and I still don't get it. "It's not going to work anyhow so I'll make sure it's not going to work to prove that it's not going to work." Huh. --Conti|✉ 19:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How about thinking for a moment, about the context, instead of blindly quoting policy. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility is one of the Five Pillars, and WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reverted the edit because it was a personal attack; I commented in the discussion purely to weigh in. HurricaneFan25 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case. You (and Sarek) also reverted comments made by an editor you're arguing against. That's never going to solve a conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just want to weigh in here. I was the first to remove it and I have not taken part in the debate at all. I was not arguing against anyone, just removing a personal attack against an editor who, when it was posted, hadn't added commented yet. Jeancey (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Warned. [115] causa sui (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"We would very much like you to continue to make constructive contributions to articles and related discussions." Who's we? Could you be any more patronising? --Mkativerata (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose "We" includes the set of all editors who agree that the behavior under discussion is not acceptable, for whom I somewhat boldly take myself to be speaking. I'd be interested in suggestions on how I could be more effective at communicating the behavioral expectations of the community without coming off as patronizing, provided that the suggestions don't include condoning unacceptable behavior (like this). causa sui (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm... don't write to other editors in an officious manner? Elen of the Roads seems to have been managing it quite well on that talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding the royal "we" would probably a good idea when not speaking to newbies, IMHO. It gives the impression that the person spoken to is not or should not feel like part of the community. --Conti|✉ 19:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When it comes to skills with diplomacy, Elen of the Roads is quite a high bar to set. I hope you wouldn't expect that no one can do this kind of administrative work unless they are as good at it as her, because that would disqualify quite a few of us. ;) I do watch and learn from her wherever I can. So while I can always improve that aspect and I appreciate the feedback, I stand by the comments; because the important thing is that The Pink Oboe comes to understand that this behavior will not be tolerated. causa sui (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's patronising because you're talking as if I don't know what's expected of me. I'm not a bloody toddler you know. It's bloody annoying getting a damn lecture from someone who thinks I'm an idiot for taking potshots, especially when it's most likely that person is younger than me. It does not make the situation better, it's like throwing gasoline on a fire. People management by the average admin is appalling. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly that's a problem in itself if you think a person younger then you can't ask that you behave in a manner appropriate to wikipedia because they're younger then you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I hate having to point out the obvious more than once, but The Pink Oboe shares an awful lot of the same interests as a particular blocked user, who just happens to have as friends the same set of editors who have been coming to their defence in this latest round of incivility. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You hate it? But it hasn't stopped you doing it twice. Seems to me you have a debt to pay this Webhamster.--The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• WebHamster's last edit
• TPO's first edit

Hmmm. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A sock check may turn out to be unnecessary, the way this is going. [116] causa sui (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked by Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). [117] causa sui (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There are three reasons to block: (1) the account is acting like a troll, (2) the username is slang for penis, which is not cool for a collaborative project involving people of all ages and sexes, (3) this is extremely likely to be User:WebHamster who is indefinitely blocked. Note that (1) and (2) are sufficient reasons to block independently of (3). Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch, but I was going to say, isn't there a guideline called "Don't be a Pink Oboe"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO I'd say 1 and 3 are the solid reasons while 2 is iffy; "pink oboe" is pretty obscure, not like a well-known rusty trombone, y'know. But anyways, good block. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that doubters google-image the term [pink oboe] and see what comes up. I do NOT recommend doing that image search at work, unless you happen to work at a porn shop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

See, the username was the most obvious issue that I saw - until I read the talk page and looked into the edits. I've declined to unblock, and have not consented to lower the block to a single week as the editor requested. Did someone put in a checkuser request? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I opened a SPI request and was just developing it when it was closed - in less than a half hour. I don't think checkuser will help unless the users data is recorded somewhere. Webhamster edited on some kind of local network. The only account active in the last three months (for checkuser checking) is The Oboe. User:WebHamster has one confirmed sockpuppet - User:Fred the Oyster - I challenge anyone to spend half an hour comparing the three accounts contributions and not to come to the same conclusion I did. - saying that, its not really a big issue, its his recent edits and apparent unhappiness at the way things operate around here thats the real issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Pity you didn't spend that half an hour working on an article. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob works on plenty of articles. If the editor in question had been behaving civilly, there would have been no need to spend that half hour on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Here, The Pink Oboe mocks the indef block by pointing out that anyone can simply recreate another account to escape the consequences of a block. I asked Alexandria (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to consider reopening Off2riorob's SPI in light of these developments. causa sui (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly "mocking" to point out the self-evident truth obvious to anyone. Time to walk away from the bonfire and put your pitchfork away. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So what's the alternative? To not block anyone? Sure, he can create a new account. And if he goes back to "the scene of the crime", as socks often do, then he'll be bounced again. But if he behaves, he won't be caught, articles might improve, and then everybody wins. How likely is that, though? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking infantilises everyone, not healthy. So he shoots off on his talk page at the blocking admin, so what? For all I (and you know) he may have created another account some time ago, and is using it now. Blocking only serves to enrage, it prevents nothing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen countless cases where blocking eventually sent malcontents away for good. So it can accomplish its goal. Ranting and raving is normal behavior for a segment of the blocked editors, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very revealing comment. You make the judgement about who is a malcontent and who isn't, and the purpose of blocking is to drive those you consider to be malcontents away. Perhaps you ought to try having that included in the blocking policy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it your view that no editor should ever be blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But we haven't even had our s'mores yet. causa sui (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry - he just tossed off a Personal attack on the blocking admin. If it's not removed, I'm going to lock the talk page. I'd really rather not, but I don't see many options here - he's rapidly digging a hole. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't hold against him his anger at being blocked. Block suck, but sometimes there is no other alternative. Jehochman ^Talk 00:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No other alternative, as opposed to just "no alternative"? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WebHamster in progress. causa sui (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

...and we have a winner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mary O'Nette - Thank Jimbo we've got automatic IP-checking tools. We'd never have spotted that one without. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WebHamster is not the sock master...you'd have to go back much further to ID that one. We've seen this numerous times before.--MONGO 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I think Courcelles did check for sleepers. What other evidence wasn't considered in the SPI? causa sui (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I have no doubt that is the case...but WebHamster's very first edit...is not one a newbie would make. Not that anything seems to have been problematic then...but then again, socks are socks, and any older ones are probably long lost anyway.--MONGO 01:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem particularly suspicious, perhaps you're getting paranoid. Nev1 (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What? I was merely alluding that WebHamster wasn't a newbie even 5 years ago...how does that make me paranoid? I don't need checkuser to ID a sockmaster--MONGO 02:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WebHamster has now been unblocked by Black Kite (talk · contribs) on the basis of "I knew TPO was you as soon as I poked through your contributions following that non-free image kerfuffle, but, meh, what's the point of blocking someone who's mostly editing productively?", most likely related to WH's request here as The Pink Oboe, asking to be unblocked so he can continue to contribute in a particular manner.

The unblocking admin doesn't appear from my quick checks to have consulted the CU/blocking admin who acted on the SPI, for any of the (multiple) accounts this user operated. This strikes me as...non-ideal. Unrepentant socking is generally one of those things you don't get unblocked after because you say "Now I could quite easily [edit] as a sock but sooner or later I would be caught and that's just a general waste of time for everyone." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I must admit to be rather puzzled by this development as well, from what I saw above and the user's attitude, I fail to see how his socking should be treated so leniently. I really don't understand the reasoning behind the unblock. Unrepentant sockmaster, serious civility problems (see his talkpage box at the top for a sample of the user's attitude and approach). User clearly states that "I know it could be said that I just don't care, which to be honest is probably close to the truth.". Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a fair bit of historic here from a fair while ago. WebHamster was blocked with the note to get over the issues and edit in an adult manner and request unblocking and we now appear to have that situation. He is on a good faith request agreement not to continue recent disruptive/rudeness issues and we all hope that he will move forward in a constructive manner. The socking issues are not worth additional action imo and I for one have no objection to the unblocking, in fact I support it. Lets hope good faith and constructive contributions will be the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"The provisos for me to be unblocked is that I keep my edits to article space (except my own page of course), and then only to add, change or remove images, or other edits that are image related. I've promised not to get into discussions in Wikipedia space (apart from the image workshops) or other User space (though I may break that one just for a select few users)." Please note the last portion. I fail to see the good faith, aside from being straight forward about his intent to break his commitments. Also see the whole civility-free space thing, the middle finger given to the reader of the page, and extensive socking in the last 24 hours. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as for the extensive socking, he created a few throwaway accounts. The best is that he has held his hands up to the WebHamster account and made a commitment to move forward in a less disruptive and more colloquial and constructive manner - negating on that commitment will likely have the usual consequences. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Off2riorob here. If Webhamster/Pink Oboe wants to confine himself to a single account, choose a non-scandalous username, edit productively in the image arena and stay away from the discussion pages which tend to be the problem areas for him, that's what we want, isn't it? 28bytes (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reblocked; there is no way we should REWARD sockpuppetry like this. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That takes us solidly into wheel-war territory, doesn't it? 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how much you want to wikilawyer it on the grounds that he unblocked WH, not TPO... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

They're the same editor, for Christ's sake. Did the blocking admin consult me? No. Did he consult the original blocking admin (Jehochman) who agreed the unblock with conditions? No. It doesn't matter which account is unblocked. We have an editor who promises to behave if given an account, and only stick to one area of Wikipedia (image post-processing) at which they have been very productive. If they slip back into problematic behaviour, we can re-block them. It's a win-win situation. I fucking despair sometimes. Black Kite (t) 18:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Said editor also announced his intent to break said promises regarding the area of involvement, has a box on the top of his talk page announcing his intent to continue behaving as in the past regard civility issues on his talk page. On the one hand he says he will do so and so, on the other makes it very clearly he won't. I don't see how it can be judged credible. I see no change in the user's behavior from what led to his block, nor will to change. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that they've edited very productively for a long time until recently under the sock. I've known who it was for a long time and so have a number of other admins. Don't they at least deserve a chance to prove they can behave? Fixing the problem if they don't is only one keypress away. Black Kite (t) 18:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with Black Kite on this one, and I support the unblock. It's not about "rewarding" anything, it's about what's best for Wikipedia - and I think giving an otherwise productive editor a further chance to contribute (and it will be under close observation now) is the best approach at this time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The issue of WH/TPO being "productive" is somewhat disputable; note that this thread was initially begun on the issue of his habitual incivility and nonconstructive behavior. The socking only came out later, and added fuel to the fire that was already burning. I, personally, don't see someone who engages in as disruptive a manner as TPO was as someone who is "productive". I suppose others have different views on what constitutes productivity. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User:WebHamster block and unblock; possible wheel war - leaving it to the community to judge me and others

This user was blocked. He started sockpuppeting, using multiple accounts; when caught and blocked, he was unblocked by User: Black Kite, for reasons which are completely a mystery to me. I reflexively reblocked WebHamster, since I could see no reason on earth to reward a sockpuppeter whose socks are not merely incivil but gratuitously obnoxious, vulgar and destructive (one sock claims to suffer from Tourette's-like symptoms). I was not trying to start a wheel war, but of course will submit my WP:IAR action to the judgement of the broader administrative community. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite is generally a very sensible admin - did you touch base with him to ask why he'd unblocked? MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Re Webhamster: I support an unblock per my comments above.
2. Re Orangemike: Orangemike is an excellent admin and made a decision he thought was obvious and in the best interests of the project, so have a minnow for the wheel-warring (if it's fair to call it that) and let's move on from that and let the community decide on Webhamster's fate. 28bytes (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Black Kite's reason for unblock can be found here (and to be fair, in the unblock comment he did say "per discussion at User talk:The Pink Oboe" - a quick search on "WebHamster" found it for me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The unblock was also agreed with Pink Oboe's original blocking admin Jehochman (see talk page). OrangeMike did not consult with either myself or him. The reasons for unblocking are only a mystery to him because he didn't investigate the issue - all the information was there. The user asked us for one chance and we gave it to them. The only difference is we unblocked their original account, not their sock. If we'd unblocked TPO and OrangeMike had reblocked them that would have been wheel-warring - so why is this OK? They've edited very productively as TPO until recently; I've known who TPO was for a while and some people have known for longer than me. I didn't see the point in blocking a productive editor at the time. What's the worst that can happen? WebHamster returns to his previous behaviour, gets blocked again and stays blocked. What's the best? He continues editing productively (in an area where not many people work) as he did as TPO. Win/win situation, surely? Black Kite (t) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kite; the discussion at User talk:The Pink Oboe is exactly what I meant by "reasons which are completely a mystery to me"! There was nothing in that brief discussion which I could understand as an explanation of why a serial sockpuppeter should be unblocked; nor do any of your further comments, good faith as they clearly are, clarify it for me. The only reason I reverted you is that it seemed to me to be a no-brainer, classic WP:IAR material; I certainly meant no discourtesy to you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by that, I thought the chain of events went :he is disruptive as TPO, has an SPI started because of that, and then is proven to be WH an indef blocked user. If he was constructive as TPO, surely this chain of events would not have transpired. Did I miss something? Heiro 19:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. He got into a high-profile argument as TPO and ended up getting blocked for incivility (which was fair enough, but it wouldn't have been an indef); prior to that he had been constructive - see the history of his talkpage, for instance. Black Kite (t) 19:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

He got blocked for personal attacks or harassment twice. The first time it required removing talk page access. I believe this sort of behaviour and general incivility was what got the Webhamster account blocked so I would say it is concerning since it doesn't sound like they've improved much. They have been constructive, so it's a question of whether the good work they do is enough to outweight the problems they seem to cause. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support block-rewarding an indeff blocked user who sockpuppets,( and whose behavior as the sock is so egregious he gets himself blocked again and in the process reveals still more socks), with an unblock of the original account? Per the link above, where the editor discusses his medical problems and seeks to blame his behavior on them to some extent, WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. The project and its other members shouldn't be subjected to the sort of behavior the editor has displayed, repeatedly as several accounts, editing Wikipedia isn't for everyone. Heiro 18:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. The 'discussion at User talk:The Pink Oboe" does not appear to have addressed the issue of socking, and only peripherally addressed the issue of incivility ("language won't be an issue, because I won't be talking to anyone", basically). There were also only two participants in that discussion other than TPO, as opposed to the numerous editors who weighed in on the original ANI thread, which was strongly in favor of TPO (or WebHamster, or whichever name we'd like to call him) being a disruptive user. In a case where community discussion has reached the point of "block this user for his behavior", followed by the revelation of blatant socking (which the user seems to find amusing), I would expect to see discussion with the community prior to an unblock. OrangeMike was a bit fast on the draw to reblock the way he did, but to my eyes, the unblock was...really quite bad, such that the block really ought to have been restored pending community consensus that TPO's proposed restrictions were valid unblock conditions. ("You should unblock me. I'll behave, mostly, and anyway if you don't unblock, I'll just sock." "Sure, have an unblock"? Really?)A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This case definitely took a strange turn. Wikipedia doesn't typically welcome sockmasters back with open arms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Except that he gave up all his socks to us to show at least a bit of good faith, something that appears to be in short supply round here. Black Kite (t) 18:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That's another strange turn. It's typically hard to get sockmasters to admit they're socking, let alone providing a list of them. I wonder - how hard will it be to get a reblock at a later date, vs. reblocking right now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • If he steps out of line once, I'll block him myself, and I said as much. Black Kite (t) 19:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • No, he did not "give up" all his socks. They were found in an SPI. causa sui (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Not quite - the SPI was only endorsed because he admitted to socking - the checkuser was originally turned down as not enough evidence; at that point he could have given up with TPO and carried on with one of the others, if he'd so wished. Black Kite (t) 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
        • You still have this wrong. I helped to get the SPI reopened after unrelated editors presented evidence of socking in the AN/I discussion above. TPO also made statements after being blocked indicating he thought it was pointless to indefblock him because he could just create another account. That is not the same thing as coming clean; it's the opposite. It's "I'm going to do what I want and you can't stop me." He openly admitted it (ha ha, you guys got me) after the checkuser confirmed the socking. causa sui (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support reblock per Fluffernutter. When community consensus is that strong in favor of a block, unblocking with a two-person consensus is a Bad Thing, and OrangeMike acted appropriately to enforce the consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - Black Kite should explain why he/she shouldn't be desysop'd for unblocking. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - User was socking less than 24 hours ago, announced on the top of his talk page he won't follow his restrictions (second paragraph) and made clear he has no interest in behaving civilly (first paragraph). We don't need sockpuppetters who never repented and clearly stated their intent to keep socking if not unblocked. Zero willingness to address the socking, zero willingness to address the civility issues. I'm still amazed at how the user was even considered for unblocking without him addressing any of the issues that got him blocked. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) Frankly, I endorse the block. TBH, I couldn't see any "real" material on the talk page that addressed the original reasons — including the socking — of blocking. HurricaneFan25 19:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Trouts for all. I don't much care whether Webhamster/Pink Oboe/clever sockpuppet guy is blocked or unblocked. What does grind my gears is the fact that I (and others) specifically declined to unblock, and did so for specific reasons. Whatever other accounts the editor was using, his conduct as TPO was enough to warrant a block. At a minimum, I would've liked to have seen Black Kite offer some sort of explanation, here or to the admins who had blocked and confirmed the block - "Hey, you reviewed this, but now he's promised to do X, Y, and Z, and I think we should unblock." would've been all you needed. There was no urgency here, no imminent harm to the project in leaving this guy blocked - quite the opposite. From the conversation at TPO's talk, I imaging having an editor advocate on his behalf would've been sufficient to satisfy him as to his shot at being unblocked. The reblock was ill-advised as well, though much easier to justify. My concern there is that the drama it causes will far outweigh the damage prevented by the block itself. OrangeMike and Black Kite are both smart admins, but we got suckered here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, my last comment. The only drama is here, not anywhere else (and you're also missing the point that it was Jehochman who originally agreed to the unblock; I only pressed the button because he wasn't around). WebHamster (as TPO) was a very productive editor in an area where not many people work (you only have to look at the history of TPO's talkpage to see the number of fulfilled requests for image work). JH and I obviously thought that it was worth one last chance - and let's face it, it wasn't as if he wouldn't be heavily monitored. I don't understand this, really; we have dozens of disruptive editors wandering the Wiki causing massive drama everywhere (see, for example, global warming, Israel/Palestine, cold fusion etc. etc. etc.), many of them being blocked, unblocked and still causing massive drama and problems yet TPO had stayed under the radar for a long time, working away productively. It was worth a shot. And as I said, the moment he stepped out of line, he'd be gone for good. Ah well. Black Kite (t) 19:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • My point wasn't that he should or should not be blocked - Wiser men than I have already weighed in. My concern was that it seemed that very little discussion had taken place about it - though Jehochman agreeing to the unblock is a big piece of the puzzle. I don't give a good goddamn whether the editor is the most prolific featured article writer on the planet - if there's reason to believe that his incivility and sockpuppet shenanigans were going to continue, he should've remained blocked. That's the point on which I think we should've had more discussion - and it's likely I would have agreed with your position. Hell, I kind of do anyway. But that wasn't my point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support reblock Like Fluffernutter I am unpersuaded by the sincerity of his statements. WebHamster/TPO doesn't seem to believe that he's done anything wrong. Like UltraExactZZ I think that given the history the bigger danger to the project was unblocking, and given the number of people endorsing the original block some review would have been much better than unilateral action. Edit: Suggestions that anyone desysop are totally ridiculous. It seems impossible for an admin to make a mistake without someone reaching for the executioner's axe. causa sui (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support reblock....and with RkLawton as to the desysopping og Black Kite...there is a bad pattern developing here and some admins are seriously misusing their powers.MONGO 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait a second here. Jehochman blocks... fair enough. Jehochman then gives his blessing for an unblock, which Black Kite then does. How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, "misusing [his] powers"? 28bytes (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • RkLawton asks for Black Kite to give reasons as to why he should not be desysopped. One would assume reading the bloody threads would demonstrate BK's view point, without him having to explain it (like this a court of law or something). Unhelpful drama creating desysop calls are not adressing the issue; More germane is that they do not belong in a thread about the unblocking / blocking of this user. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I get it...a completely neutral admin decided to perform a completely uncontroversial action and had wide support for it prior to this action...why didn't I SEE that!!! Of course!MONGO 21:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested to know what you mean by your sarcastic use of "neutral" here ... (tip: check The Pink Oboe's block log). Black Kite (t) 21:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What you clearly do not see is that sticking "wheel war" and "block" in the same section at ANI will invite much pointless drama and confuses two issues. For an experienced user like yourself, I find that a little suprising. Your sarcastic reply duly noted and disregarded however. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh yeah ... and next time I need advice on poor tool use by someone who was desysopped for the very same, I'll ask, thanks. Black Kite (t) 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am speaking from experience...your apparent inability to see that you're part of the problem here seems to indicate that you need a similar experience...and it can be arranged.--MONGO 02:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd suggest being sarcastic and then being vaguely threatening probably underlines the reasons that you lost the tools, to be honest. Anyway, your call, you know where WP:RFCU is - go for it. Black Kite (t) 02:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I hereby declare this bluff 'called. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support UNblock. I'll stick my neck out, though not my pink oboe. What WebHamster et al have misdone here is not really under discussion, and neither is the good they have done for the project, and the latter should be our interest. I am satisfied that we have full disclosure, and I am satisfied with the discussion on the Oboe's talk page. I'll take him at good faith. I won't go finding fault with the blocking, unblocking, or reblocking admin; I want us to move on. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support block - Frankly, from what I saw of TPO's unblock request, it basically amounted to "I don't want to sock, so unblock me" - with the implication that socking or meatpuppetry would likely occur if an unblock was not issued. As for contributions vs. civility - it's not "either/or". Yes, TPO/etc. has contributed a lot of quality content. But if he won't contribute in a civil matter, the encyclopedia won't grind to a halt without him (maybe we need WP:WIKIDOESNOTNEEDYOU written?); if he can't, as has been hinted at ("mini-strokes"/Tourette's) then, without any disrespect meant on account of his condition, WP:COMPETENCE comes into play - making allowances for uncivil behavior because "they can't help it" isn't a road I think we should be going down. I don't think anything stronter than {{trout}} should be handed out, but I do believe there should have been more discussion prior to the original unblocking, seeing as the AN/I thread that kicked off the most recent round was still active at the time of unblocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – this situation looks like the one with TreasuryTag – a "keyboard warrior" editor who looks for naive/soft admins and uses them as a crutch, not only to do their fighting for them, but to warrant/justify their behaviour. As for "tourettes" – in cases like this I wish WP:RS applied as much to "mental instability" claims as it does to verifying an editor is deceased before marking their page as such – i.e. they should be asked to prove it, as it's easy for anyone to game the system and use WP:AGF as a pretext to act disruptively. Personally, I wish a few more admins had the constitution of Pierrepoint and were willing to pull the lever on every highly disruptive editors, instead of turning the matter ad nauseum. Pusillanimous people like Webhamster feed off sympathy, and Wiki isn't a play ground. Nor does approving of "adult language" automatically make Wiki an "adult site" and mean we should discriminate against younger readers on that basis (see this nonsense]) – strong language is offensive to people for many reasons: age, gender, sexuality, religion, natural dislike for profanity – so members like Webhamster are harming Wiki on a far greater scope than a few clean-minded minors. There are people aiming to give Wiki a functional position in schools, as a resourceful encyclopedia – that won't happen with F's and B's flying all over. Editors are not the only people on Wiki, and I sometimes think some admins are frequently short-sighted in their approach to dealing with the internal community (contributors), and forget the wider world of regular readers who never click "Edit" but use the site faithfully. Anyway, just my two cents as I think a few admins consider themselves the only members capable of discussing such matters, per the idiom "too many chiefs but not enough Indians", which often results in low quality management. NB: These are not PAs, they are observations – if you can't accept that admins are all fallible humans too, you need to wake up to reality. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Come on Marcus--I don't think like to think of Black Kite and myself as naive or soft. No one here was suggesting, I think, that non-admins aren't welcome in this discussion. School teachers are unlikely to publicly peruse the talk pages of editors (though I have used Malleus's talk page to an all-adult, coed audience), and I like to think that teachers will pull up Featured Articles if they want to use Wikipedia, but that's beside the point. Your complaint about low-quality management is a bit gratuitous, since at the current state of discussion the editor you want blocked is still blocked--if anything, you should probably sing the praises of the long-sighted admins who support this block and the stiffness of their pink oboes, as opposed to Black Kite's and mine weakly protuberances. Ha, if anything, I could show how HUGE my pink oboe is by unblocking against stiff consensus, but I want to be a team player even if I disagree with what we're doing here. So if I seem weak and naive it is because I follow consensus, hoping only to help sway it. BTW, and FWIW, I have disagreed with WebHamster in the past--I may have even called them a bad name. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, firstly I didn't say "who" was naive/soft, you put those names forward - I said editors "like" TreasuryTag/Webhamster look for soft admins to fight their battles for them, given that this isn't the first instance of such behaviour being discussed and persistent troublemakers defended more than they deserve. Now Black Kite is taking the flak for putting his neck out, and people want him demoted from admin as a result. I sympathise with him, because it shouldn't have to come to that - Webhamster's account was put on the block and severed. There is no "good faith" in playing admin sympathy for your own gains if you're aware that you are disruptive, as he is and has been to a considerable degree, cunning, inconsiderate and self-serving interests. Secondly, my comment on "low-quality management" isn't a complaint, it's a suggestion that most of the people commenting, and bickering, here are admins and it doesn't hurt to seek outside opinions, to maintain a neutral balance. As for Wiki in schools, who said anything about teachers? Kids have net-access, research, find an article that supports their studies, then they go to the talk page and find some trumped-up prig f'ing and name-calling. That discredits the article, and wiki entire. How it affects the kid, or their research, is unpredictable. Would it also be right for someone with Webhamster's demeanour to post their "tourettes afflicted" (yes, I'm cynical) views on, let's say, the Justin Bieber talk page, where no doubt a lot of young girls are likely to visit? If you had a 12–16 year old kid, would you want them to read his "oops, slip of the finger due to my tourettes" remarks? I wouldn't - but the comments reflect on Wiki as a whole, not that one editor, or one article, but everyone and everything gets blanketed with "Wiki is a foul website" remarks. You, me, Jimbo, every admin and contributor, because one guy thinks "shut the fuck up already" is an appropriate edit summary or response to a challenge when their contribs are criticised. I do support those admins who support his block. But take a look at TreasuryTag's history and how easily someone can play the system, bounce back time and time again under false promises, socks, etc, get the support of admins and then back-stab them all because they knew they have no intention of being civil. How many resources are they wasting due to their disruptions in comparison to their "productive edits"? For every hour he spends alone, several admins spend each warning, investigating, discussing his account. In short, his productiveness isn't good value because his attitude loses more time than his contribs gain. I have no sympathy for blocking someone with a million edits, if they can't learn to mind their attitude to the degree that half those edits involve turning Wiki into a sewer. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum's worst enemy is the clique of supporters that flock to him, blind supporters and disrupters and trolls that imo are the enemy within to the project - users that support an environment that would look like the early flame wars of the internet. and would if they had their way, destroy the project. - User:Parrot of Doom, User:WebHamster - User:Nev1, all from the same geo location, add on User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz - they all blindly support each other and degenerate the community civility position. Such groups of disruptive users that edit against the community consensus position need removal whether some of them write content or not, as a group imo they are a net loss to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers rob, your unwavering support is much appreciated. Nev1 (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I'll take that abusive and nonsensical comment as a compliment. Feel free to geolocate me--I'm pretty close to Birmingham, actually. And maybe MF can come by and copy edit for you, troll and flamer that he is. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful. 28bytes (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Its the reality though difficult to look at . - This whole issue revolves around Malleus. What did WebHamster do immediately after creating the disruptive run to mummy redirect - he ran to mummy - or rather... Malleus... to tell him what naughty disruptive thing he had done. Who has supported the redirect , supporters of Malleus. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're not asking for administrative action against Malleus for someone visiting his talk page, then bringing him up is only going to inflame things further. So, again, not helpful. 28bytes (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how does this mess revolve around me, except in Off2riorob's fanciful imagination? Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Its all about you Malleus, your supporters, you are the leader of the group. They support you, your position, they flock to your talkpage. The best thing you could do is tell them all to go away, find another figurehead. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a group now? How exciting! Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

: If I may. I'm not a member of this "community" anymore but check in from time to time, and this one i find amusing. The original indef block on the Hamster was placed by one "Protonk." The discussion leading up to it was precipitated by hamster's creation of a page on the false claim that a celebrity enjoyed stuffing small rodents up his butt. This block was widely supported at the time. [118]. The warning notice at the top of his page, and the picture of the middle finger, are just adorable (If you have come here to lecture, patronise, troll or otherwise fuck me about then you lose the right to have any expectation of a civil response.) Have fun!Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock- This editor has been doing productive work so I'm persuaded by Black Kite's argument that they should be given another chance. It's not as though they'll be able to do much harm now. Reyk _YO! 21:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. As a general comment, editors who engage in severe BLP vandalism as Webhamster did most likely have severe problems that make them unpredictable, e.g. severe mental or alcohol problems. It is not appropriate and neither in Wikipedia's interest nor in such editors' interest to let them resume editing without following the proper process to minimise damage to either. Hans Adler 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If you're referencing the gerbil, that was years ago. Has Hamster/Oboe been guilty of such infractions since then? (I'm asking honestly--I agreed that the article should have been squashed.) Drmies (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

    It doesn't matter how long ago that was. We have procedures for banned editors who wish to return, such as WP:STANDARDOFFER, and they should be followed. Returning as a sock, behaving problematically again, and then getting caught is not one of them. I don't see why should make an exception for an editor with such a confrontative attitude, who also makes bizarre, unverifiable claims related to Tourette syndrome. It's not OK to feed such trolls. Hans Adler 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

    He made no such claims about Tourette syndrome. I don't know why people keep saying he did. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

    Sorry. Thanks for pointing that out. In my case I saw it mentioned in this discussion, saw something like it at User talk:The Pink Oboe#Tourette's syndrome affects some editors, so please be kind to everybody, and didn't really go beyond the heading. Turns out that it was Kiefer Wolfowitz who came up with the idea, and TPO actually dismissed it. Hans Adler 22:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you. I appreciate the correction. 28bytes (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• FYI: Hamster just posted an unblock request on his talk page. I'm going to venture a guess that no single admin will respond to that before discussion here has developed a bit--or descended some more as the case may be. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - The point of blocks, so we're always told, is to stop disruption. TPO was blocked and any supposed disruption ended. Now he's agreed to chill out and to continue where he left off. So what would a block achieve, or is it punishment that people want? Oh, and which admin is going to rebuke Off2riorob for his personal attack a few lines up? Parrot of Doom 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've asked Rob to refactor - as you or Drmies or anyone else could have done. Or are you after punishment (your words) POD? Seems like it to me. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Hopefully, none. Whilst Rob is somewhat crude, his observations are just. It is just as "fair game" to identify shared geolocations as it is to match IPs socking, and suggest a pattern - he could have been less accusational, however. If you want another admin to rebuke him, you're spinning his opinions into personal venture. This discussion relates to Webhamster's block, not your.. pride. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not after punishment, just consistency, but I think I have more chance of seeing a chicken with lips than that.. MarcusBritish, you're talking bollocks; I am not a disruptive editor, as Off2riorob alleged. Parrot of Doom 21:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm talking bollocks? That's the kind of addlepated remark I expect of someone who doesn't have a good word for anyone, but themselves. Maybe you too could do with a course in civility. Don't come the priggish abuse at me though. You clearly assumed I "sided with" Rob. On the contrary, I said his observations were just, not his conclusion. Don't run to admins to defend your name, pride, conscience or to rebuke people, it really is poor for and I am unperturbed by your.. sulking. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, you were talking bollocks and you still are. Off2riorob wrote a blatent personal attack against several editors and you excused it as merely an observation. Then you bring up the issue of civility, erroneously, while assuming that my post referred to my pride or conscience when it was plainly about neither. Nice of you to finish off by claiming I'm sulking though. What now of your civility policy, eh? Parrot of Doom 22:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Sulking is an observation also. Bollocks are something I don't attribute to you, physically. Like Webhamster - all mouth, no trousers. Keyboard warrior. Because no one wants to rally to your anti-Rob campaign, you try to belittle them. Your "bollocks" remarks are nothing more than insults, and if you were smart you would at least offer a defence as to why Rob is wrong. You didn't even attempt that. Instead you resorted to slurs and demands for a chief whip to sweep his remarks under a convenient rug for you. So here's some more "bollocks" - what makes Rob wrong, and you right? There are 2 sides to every argument.. and your only defence has been "bollocks". I observed that, you made it "offensive" to yourself. I don't take fools gladly. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
            • • You make this laughably easy. I made no observation of Rob or you, rather it was your arguments to which I referred. That didn't stop you from whittling on about civility, before launching into half a dozen silly personal attacks about my manhood and my motives. That makes you a hypocrite, just like most of the other civility proponents I've encountered here. Parrot of Doom 22:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                • I have to make it easy - wouldn't want to strain you. You've been grinding an axe against Rob for a while, I saw your off-hand remarks above and on Webhamster's talk page - you either have a serious crush on him, or a personal settle to score, to warrant that amount of mentions of him. As they say - take it outside. You have no room for "rebukes", kettle calling the frying pan. It's a pleasure encountering you - you set the benchmark for me to realise how I'm normal, and you're constantly condescending and contemptuous. I call a stick a stick - problem is, where yours is lodged, no wonder you have problems dealing with "accusations" that are not that important, and are off-topic. Storm in a teacup, old boy. Your tactics are little more than misguided bully tactics. Go bitch to someone who remotely cares. Your attempt at "sarcastic" edit summaries are decrepit too. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                  • Yet more personal attacks. Laughable. Parrot of Doom 23:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                    • Glad you're amused! I find your sycophantic request here even more so the funnier. Got a problem? There's a "New Section" option above – use it. Claim I'm PA'ing you, whilst defending your own first-serve comment given that I'm not the only one thinks you're a whiney pretentious fool. I'll do you a favour in return: I'll paint that "chicken with lips" on my arse – seems like you could do with a good kiss! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                      • For anyone interested, I think your presumption that I have any interest in sucking up to anyone here says a great deal about you. For anyone interested, that is. Enjoy wallowing in filth. Parrot of Doom 23:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                        • More butter? *smoochy* Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block He's clearly not competent! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block I think Black Kite made a good-faith "on the ground" call to unblock, given JEH's agreement, however given the wider interest and egregious latter behaviour by TPO, running it by the community first would have been a better strategy. BK's reasoning is sound but there were lingering concerns about whether WH is truly committed to civil engagement, and OrangeMike's reasoning in reblocking (we don't negotiate with sockmasters) is also valid. The latest unblock request tips me over to firm support for the block to remain, at least for now, so I guess I am one of "the slavish zealots amongst you". Franamax (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - while I supported Black Kites good faith unblock on a short lead, my support was only after the event. I also support Mike's re-block for his stated reasons. - as he is now blocked again and nothing I have seen from him has given me any faith that he will contribute with regard to community norms and not attempt to push his minority position on to the community at this time without further discussion and assurances I am unwilling support an unblock. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Completey Navel-gazing commentary by non-administrator Isn't it great how we can fight the same block-unblock-block fight every 2 to 3 months without having to remember the last time we had a drag out fight with threats to go to ArbCom with emergency petitions for desysopping and non-apology apologies from the wheel warring administrators who cause the problem. I think I've seen this pattern now 5 times in the year of active editing and perusing ANI. If we're going to make WHEELWAR mean something then there should be consequences. Each administrator is responsible for only one administrator's actions, their own. If you can't stay around to implement a adminstrative action based on consensus, you should let another administrator make the decision.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs)
• All this is, really, is a clear indictment on our entire community - both "content editors" and "admins" and everyone in between. When so much fallout can come from one "arsehole" (pun intended) you have to question whether something is fundamentally flawed. Those redirects have a certain validity you know... I mean, seriously, come on! Unblock and everyone go back to their corners. --'Errant ^(chat!) 22:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As I see it, the issue this time (as with the last time it happened, a few days ago) is lack of communication prior to taking some potentially controversial action. A few words of discussion could have prevented this latest food-fight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - WebHamster is wikilawyering to somehow say 'he' wasn't blocked, only the account was, and there's no prohibition against socking to evade a block anyway. That's obvious bullshit, and we should not be rewarding someone who refuses to follow a very simple rule by welcoming them back. → ROUX ₪ 22:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Welcoming them back with some pretty onerous restrictions you forgot to mention. You have clearly also neglected to look into the history of User:Law, aka User:theUndertow. The socking issue is by no means as clear cut as seem to believe. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it's fair to say that kerfuffle has actually negatively influenced people's willingless to accept someone coming back when blocked and showed people were actually not that willing to accept the sort of thing even when people behave well (from memory that was mostly the case). Okay there's no administorship here, but when you get blocked for the same problem a few months after coming back, and then try to say there was nothing wrong with you coming back, well.... Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • (after e/c) TU left behind a smoking ruin of resignations out of his good intentions, because he took it too far and his "friends" acquiesced. That incident did make clear that the community does not look kindly on "open secrets" when it starts impacting on the community, as it clearly did here. Franamax (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support for unblock I've looked briefly in to the webhamster history but I still don't know that much. I commented fairly extensively on TPO's dispute with Hammersoft at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723#Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop and WP:NFCC compliance. As I remarked there, any sympathy people had for their position generally evaporated once people saw the incivility and personal attacks and the general way they behaved. Unfortunately, it seemed almost impossible to get this through to them. It seems that WH has somewhat of a history with this sort of behaviour and then after coming back really, it only took a few months for them to be blocked again requiring talk page access to be revoked, and then another block a month later without the sockpuppetry being a consideration. This doesn't lead me to believe they've improved. Yes, they can be quite constructive at times, but seem to go off the rails way too easily and way to massively. The fact that when they confessed to socking and said they wanted to come back as WH, they seemed to suggest it was pointless to keep them blocked since they will just sock doesn't inspire much confidence. It's not that I'm saying they're definitely insincere, they may very well be sincere at this time believing they will change. But as so many examples in real life shows, it's actually fairly common that people can be sincere about changing when they make the promise, but then all to easily fall back in to old 'habits'. Having said all that, I'm willing to support an unblock only because they seem to put in a lot of good work, particularly related to images. This doesn't negate their bad behaviour, but it means I am willing to let them have this one last chance if they really desire it. They need to understand there will be a rather low threshold when they return and if they fail to improve they're likely to be gone for a long time (and if they continue to sock, it'll just mean they're gone for even longer). So I suggest they strongly considered whether they really want to be unblocked at this time. The alternative would be a 6 months+ break (it does look like the community is going to force this on them anyway), without socking and then come back if they've really sure they can behave better. If after the break they still aren't sure they can behave well, then just don't return. Some people just aren't a fit for wikipedia. Other then hopefully some benefit of time, I think people will be slightly more tolerant of them if they're coming back after a longer time and seem to have genuinely improved even if they make some (minor) mistakes. Still it's their choice, if they want to return now, so be it. Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock and put this pitiful thread out of its misery. OrangeMike has caused more disruption with his wheel-warring than WebHamster could ever do with his naughty words. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. I don't see the aftermath as bad. The fact pattern is difficult. Nobody wants to reward bad behavior. I'd give the block/unblock/block episode a pass all around, and I'd let Black Kite (who was tracking TPO earlier) try rehab with short leash. Glrx (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. As a rule I don't support overriding another admin's decision. No reason to override the original block though. We need to permanently get rid of more of these disruptive users. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• ;Support block Given the complexity of the situation & the divergent opinions, I find it remarkable that BK would have unblocked without prior consensus. Surely they must at least have realized that this was controversial. I regard OM's action as merely restoring the status quo, and showing some of the problems with our definition of wheel warring. I'm previously unfamiliar with this particular mess, but looking at it, it seems inescapable to conclude that the unblock was an action that carried risk of imminent danger to the encyclopedia , and an emergency reversal of it was in order. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support keeping blocked. We can't allow people to just sockpuppet and then say "Oh, I was good while sockpuppeting, let me back in!" I support giving WebHamster a second chance if he refrains from socking for the next 6ish months. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are we going to run a weekly checkuser or something?--MONGO 03:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm just suggesting a standard offer, nothing out of the ordinary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• As the original blocking admin of the TPO account, I had offered an unblock on condition that the user choose exactly one account to edit from, and that it not be TPO (as the username is arguably inappropriate; this user won't benefit from a trollish username), and that the user refrain from gratuitous profanity, personal attacks, and generally abide by Wikipedia policies (implicit condition). As I see it, the user agreed, and Black Kite unblocked. If the unblock message was insufficiently clear, any concerned admin could have asked Black Kite (or me) to explain. There was no need to rapidly flip flop the block. Please, let's not talk about wheel warring; this might just be a misunderstanding. Does anybody need any further explanation? Did WebHamster do something incorrect since they were unblocked? If so, a re-block for recidivism could be justified. Jehochman ^Talk 03:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The thing is, I think, that there are more problems here than just the socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Arbcom This incident seems to have arisen because Black Kite reverted Jimbo's speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Run to Mommy. Black Kite seems to be acting as an enabler or apologist for incivility and the result is more incivility and drama. This background indicates that Black Kite was involved and so his unblock was invalid. The matter should be referred to Arbcom, who are currently deciding the Unblocks and enabling case. Black Kite has already declared himself to be tangentially involved there and this incident seems quite similar. Warden (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This would be pervasive if it wasn't (a) a personal attack ("enabler for incivility"? gee, thanks - still, I can ignore that), and (b) complete bollocks. Because I didn't revert Jimbo's deletion - have a look - it's still deleted. All I did was close the RfD (because it was pointless with people voting both like the RfD was still running and converting it to a DRV after Jimbo's deletion) and then restart it as a DRV. Which was completely logical, and no-one has complained about until now. Your second problem is that you don't understand what "tangentally" means, since I didn't use my tools at all in the case referred to at Arbcom. And I think you'll find that unblocking a user in good faith after the blocking admin had already agreed to the unblock is something they're probsbly not going to think worthy of a case either. Black Kite (t) 11:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, which was entirely in line with Jehochman's 'conditions' so can hardly be said to be controversial. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. If someone wants to propose a community ban then so be it, but this is the wrong way of doing it. Polequant (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block and trouts for the unblocker and the previous blockign admin for agreeing to it. Problematic user turns out to be a sock of an already indef blocked user, and the result is an unblock? Furthermore, could some of the enablers perhaps point out to Webhamster that editing as Webhamster and as The Pink Oboe at the same time is just probably not the best idea when you are blocked for sockpuppetry, and wanted to come back with just one account? Perhaps just showing that you are serious about it might have been somewhat helpful (yesterday and today 17 edits as Webhamster, 22 as Pink Oboe. I've accordingly bloced the Pink Oboe talk page. And why has Hurricanefan25 removed the sockpuppet cat from the sockpuppets[119]? Not helpful at all... Fram (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm a little surprised that, right in the middle of this AN/I discussion about unilateral admin moves, you unilaterally locked the talk page. It seems to me that that could have waited until there was resolution here; I'm not sure what the hurry was. 28bytes (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • He has requested an unblock as webhamster, and agreed before the previous unblock to edit with one account only. So why does he need two talkpages for two accounts? If he wants to edit as Webhamster, there is no need for him to have Pink Oboe edits at Pink Oboe's talk page. Please tell me, why does he or we need the Pink Oboe talk page active as well? Fram (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Because other people are engaging him on conversation on both pages, and he's not being disruptive on either. But that's not really the point. The point is that could we maybe have a moratorium on blocks, unblocks, locks and unlocks on the guy until this discussion is settled? We don't need any more unilateral admin actions right now; we already have the Colonel calling for an Arbcom case. What we need is discussion and consensus on this. 28bytes (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Everyone who wants to engage him can go to the page where he is requesting unblock. He is an indef blocked sockpuppeteer, why does he need two accounts editing two talk pages at the same time? His TPO user page is redirected to the WH user page (not by me), he wants to be unblocked as WH: having the discussion there and here is more than sufficient, without discussions about what to do with people with Tourette, which he doesn't have anyway. "What we need is discussion and consensus on" the block or unblock, not side-discussions on sock talk pages. How is keeping that talk page open helping us have discussion and finding consensus on this? Fram (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, I understand why you locked the page. Do you understand why I think additional undiscussed admin actions are unwise at this point? 28bytes (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
            • "Undiscussed" admin actions are not okay? Whatever happened to WP:BOLD? He doesn't need the sock talk page to discuss anything. Doc talk 09:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock per the double standards and incivility shown by some editors on this page. It seems somewhat hypocritical that calls to block should be done in a most uncivil manner attacking WebHamster and others, perhaps they should be disregarded.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Past behavior, and attacks from TPO against other editors, show that no trust is warranted for this user—the only thing we know for sure is that more drama will be forthcoming. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. Getting oneself indef-blocked while on the verge of arbcom sanctions (note Carcharoth's comment), Then coming back literally hours after the case was dismissed because he had been supposedly indeffed? Not to mention the long history of socking, including socks created back in 2008 and 2009, including a 2009 sock that remained dormant until very recently? We can't even be sure that he's not socking right now, since any sleepers from that time would be entirely checkuser-proof. And the response to "unblock me or I'll sock anyway" should be to revoke talk page access and get a checkuser, not to unblock. T. Canens (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Persistent spammers on DarkEden article

Several IPs, and several usernames all apparently linked to the fansites/private server pages they're trying to insert into the article. Eik Corell (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 24 hours; if the spamming resumes after that, WP:RFPP can protect it for longer. 28bytes (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Send up the links to blacklist - sorts things out with minimal drama. Rklawton (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club

Since nobody (not even an admin) commented on this, I'll bring it up since disruption is still ongoing

• Junebea1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shannon6375 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a history of vandalizing Bad Girls Club-related articles. The user was first blocked by User:Master of Puppets on 27 September 2011 for adding a last name to a living person without a source for verification, multiple times after I and User:Master of Puppets had removed them. After he was lifted from his ban, he engaged in a WP:3RR edit warring with User:Alexgx [120]. Within 15 days, Junebea1 began showing signs of WP:OWN when he believed that the "notes" section of the article should appear to readers, his edit summary was "These will not be hidden because these instances have already occurred. Keep it how it is, or you will be blocked." which "Stop reverting my edits. We need to maintain consistency with the past seasons' pages, and this is how it is suppose to be. Stop or be blocked." followed [121]. The discussion on the Bad Girls Club (season 6) talk page was to hide the notes (though now I am more towards on having them appear to readers). I told the user about the discussion but never undid his edits, which I left alone, though my reply was to bring admin attention. After the user ignored many (many) warnings on his talk page and had been removing or adding content without consensus, I brought up a discussion on the talk page to help bring stability to the article. Junebea1's responses were "There is no "the" in the title of the Bad Girls Club though, so that will remain left out" and "I'm currently experimenting to the find the best color that works" which I addressed that changes like those should be made by the community (consensus) and not on what he thinks or feels is right. (Other WP:OWN comments "DO NOT remove any references ever, or you will be blocked. And Shannon is not Shelly or Cheyenne's name so stop vandalizing it or you will be blocked.", "Stop hiding them because it makes no sense. You will be blocked for vandalism. You have to follow the past seasons' pages. Don't hide nothing, it will confuse the readers. Also, Cheyenne was forcefully removed by Tiara, so it's called a removal.") On 25 October 2011, the user gave me a warning for no pair reason. He was subsequently warned by User:Calabe1992. When I had created Bad Girls Club (season 8) article on 14 November 2011, it soon caught the eyes of vandalizing IPs and was semi-protected several hours later. The next day, Junebea1 redirected the article to its new name and added unsourced content, fancruft and removed statements that were sourced by a WP:RS. I reverted his additions and removals however, he undid my edit and decided to remove all sourced information except the cast members first names on the article. After Juneabea1 had undid my edit he gave me another warning. On 17 November 2011, Juneabea1 believed he should remove information from a WP:RS because he felt the author made a slight error. However, myself and MikeAllen disagree with his WP:OWN statements. Of course that didn't stop him from doing it himself.

I'm done with giving this user "last warnings" when they really do nothing to prevent Junebea1 from making contributions without consensus from the community. I think a temporary ban from editing Bad Girls Club-related articles is best, however, I'm not an admin so I'll leave this to you guys :)

Shannon6375

This user was blocked three times however, this user just vandalize the article Bad Girls Club (season 8). Immediate attention to these and its related articles needs admin help. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained myself in the last report you made to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I don't understand why you are bringing up past incident's to get me blocked, when we already resolved this. I apologized for any disruptions I may have created in the past, and now all your doing re-reporting this. Since some of the comments you have made to me made me feel uncomfortable and some actions you have taken as an editor here, I have decided to report you, and this report is below. I once again apologize for any misunderstandings and disruptions I may caused, and as I said before it won't happen again, and it hasn't happened yet. Thank you for your time and consideration. Junebea1 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why are you bringing so much WP:DRAMA to Wikipedia. You said in the last report that you wouldn't edit without a consensus yet you did it today, that's why I'm reporting you again and not feeding on what you said again. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a need for consensus when you are placing sources that are unreliable (i.e., an imprecise press release found here, and a website, which you deem unreliable but then support a user using as as source found here) I was only following what you were saying when you said it was unreliable. I was agreeing with you. How is that bringing drama, I'm just saying the facts. Also, you don't have any WP:EQ because you aren't forgiving and forgetting on problems that were solved a couple of days ago. I once again, apologize, I'm not sure if you accepted it or not, but I'm trying to bring drama, I'm just trying to solve the problems. Junebea1 (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I never placed an "unreliable" source to the article, secondly there's only one source on there. Thirdly, the drama is bringing up an AN/I report on me, when we both know I have done nothing wrong and have helped in preventing vandalizing going on. Lastly, why would I have an EQ if you continue to be disruptive in editing? There's been times I left messages to warn you and when there were discussions about your edits and yet you still feel as though you're additions are correct and the consensus are wrong. Though you have every right to deem the consensus built as wrong because you went WP:BOLD however, as respect, why don't you just talk about editing before you edit? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference? You reported me... twice. I turned the other cheek when you did it the first time because I realized I was wrong, but now you are reporting me again for all of the same reasons, which were resolved, that means you're wrong this time. That is WP:DRAMA. And I haven't been disruptively editing at all since you reported me the first time. I'm only going on FACTS. I am only going against the consensus because it is supporting unreliable sources. Why would I support the consensus if they are supporting unreliable sources and information, it just doesn't make any sense. I as well have been stopping vandalism from other users, specifically, User:Shannon6375. Thank you. Junebea1 (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The difference is I accepted your apology on the first report because you said "it won't happen again" however, you went against the consensus again by removing statements that were sourced. TVbyThenumbers.com is considered a WP:RS, if you think otherwise bring that discussion to WT:IRS. You're so called "FACTS" are not supported by the source so it shouldn't be included to a WP:BLP the difference from adding unsourced information to a WP:BLP oppose to un-supported facts to the lead is, the person you are adding/removing information is a living person and cannot have unsourced statements per WP:BLP, that's why I added a {{citation needed}} tags to the lead. Per WP:edit summary you need to add a summary of your edit, which you did not to do the vandal you undid. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The specific press release is not reliable because there are discrepancies throughout the article. That is unreliable. If it were straightforward and was consistent, then it would make sense to continue using that source, however it wasn't. Also you stated modelmayhem was unreliable, yet you support information that is backed by modelmayhem. That doesn't make any sense. You shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose when you feel that the source is reliable. That is WP:OWN. The "consensus" was wrong for trying to use unreliable sources for the information. Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. Thanks! Junebea1 (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing WP:DR for you two. Squibbling at this board about content issues and asking for temporary blocks for possible ownership issues... continue at your peril. Doc talk 01:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:AJona1992

• AJona1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was originally blocked for sockpuppeting, but was eventually unblocked for promising never to do so again. I think this user should have remained blocked, that's just my opinion. This user is threatening to report me to AN/I, but I'm reporting him for his reckless behavior. For instance, I tried to use modelmayhem.com as a reference on Bad Girls Club (season 7) to confirm a cast member's full name; however, he decided that this website was unreliable, and he kept removing this reference. However, in another instance, User:MikeAllen, decided to use this website as a reference for another cast member's hometown, which User:AJona1992 agreed with his decision. This is WP:OWN in my opinion because User:AJona1992 is picking and choosing when he feels this website is reliable as a reference, and that shouldn't be allowed. Also, this User:AJona1992 called me honey, which is sexual harassment, here is the source that states this is sexual harassment. Here is the discussion where this user calls me honey and shows signs of WP:OWN: Talk:Bad Girls Club (season 8)#Gia. I'm not pressing charges. Also, this user shows signs of WP:CRYSTAL when he stated, "Maybe Gia was born raised in NJ but lives and considers herself from DL. Though only the episodes (or the 30 min preview coming soon) will tell." This information suggests a solution to me and User:MikeAllen's discussion about the sourcing for a cast member's hometown; however, he is just assuming something about her life, which could be true or false. He is supporting a source, which he originally deemed unreliable, by assuming (WP:CRYSTAL) something about a cast member's life, which supports the "unreliable source". Also regarding the discrepancy in the press release, if there is a discrepancy in the press release article, doesn't that make it unreliabe? In the article, found here, it lists Gia as from Newark, Delaware; however, it then goes on to call her a "Jersey girl." That is clearly a discrepancy, however they are supporting this reference by keeping it as a source, and User:AJona1992 is saying we need to come to a consensus, when it is clearly a fact that there is a discrepancy in the article. We shouldn't be using sources riddled with errors and discrepancies. I think a temporary block from editing on Wikipedia is best, but I am not an administrator... so I'll leave this for your discussion. Thank you very much! Junebea1 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment on this but after reading the second sentence I feel as though I should say for the third time to you that I never agreed with Mike's source, I only agreed with what he stated on his reply to you. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody ... tit-for-tat ANI filings usually end up with BOTH parties blocked. Yaay! *munching popcorn* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that Model Mayhem is a reliable source. Not only are they not notable enough to have a WP page, but they clearly state: "We do not control the Content posted through the Model Mayhem Services and, as such, we do not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content and disclaim any and all liability in connection with such Content."[122] That's like using IMDB or WP content as a source, and we can't do that. Doc talk 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but User:AJona1992 is telling me it's unreliable, which is fine, but then goes ahead and agrees with another user (User:MikeAllen) who is using that website as a source for the very information he (User:AJona1992) is agreeing with. Thanks for your consideration. Junebea1 (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lolz again for the fourth time I agreed with what Mike was saying not the source. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

me hears the distinct whup whup sounds of a boomerang in the air Blackmane (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I understand that you never supported the source, but you did agree with the information that was supported by that source. Junebea1 (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't this report supposed to be about the never ending Shannon accounts? Anyway, I was just showing you that another website exist that corresponds with the Oxygen press release. Her Facebook account also list her in the Delaware network. At this point oh well, wait until January. —Mike Allen 23:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(since Junebea was noted in the original thread, then opened an obviously related ANI thread, I brought them together with a subsection) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletions by involved editor under claim of "close paraphrases"; Mkativerata

A colleague, Mkativerata, who is an involved administrator in respect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as defined by WP:ARBPIA, has today deleted variations of 2 sentences in an ARBPIA bio of Ilan Berman (3 times in half an hour).[123][124][125] Claiming that they are "close paraphrases". The 2 sentences were edited three times to seek to address his claims, and additional refs added.

Whether or not he may have been correct initially, certainly by his most recent deletion IMHO there was no merit to his claim. I'm concerned with the aggressiveness of his deletions, without talkpage discussion, especially given the ARBPIA aspect of this. I've myself opened up discussion of the issue on the article's talkpage, but not received any response there.

Perhaps an admin can keep an eye on this matter? I'm concerned that it is spiraling. I'm not asking for any other action as to Mkat. Full disclosure: In the past I've communicated concern to this editor about his behavior, and have felt that he responded aggressively and sought to exact retribution inappropriately for my having having voiced my view, so I am hoping that this is not a continuation of that, and that I will not suffer from retribution from him. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche is the subject of a long-running CCI that has uncovered a long history of copyright violations. I'm working through the CCI and I'm not going to be distracted by obstructionism. Working on a CCI requires the deletion of substantive amounts of a contributor's work. And I'm not going to be bullied out of it. And nor am I going to let the fact that I have declared myself "not uninvolved" in respect of ARBPIA stop me from removing copyright violations, being a non-POV matter. CCI needs whatever help it can get. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

My noting that you are "an involved administrator in respect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict" as defined by WP:ARBPIA is simply a reflection of what you have yourself indicated. Given the sensitivities in that area, and your being an involved editor, when you delete material such as the above under the claim that it is a copyright violation, and the claim appears baseless, that raises a concern that your "involvement" is an issue.

I agree of course that copyright violations should be addressed. Your most recent deletion, certainly, was nothing of the sort. You also failed to discuss the matter on the talkpage, despite making 3 deletions in half an hour. When unwarranted deletions are made by involved editors, that can perhaps be a problem. Involved editors can always alert other editors when they believe there is a problem, especially if it is not a clear-cut matter--I find it hard to believe that you felt that your last deletion, for example, was a clear-cut copyright violation. I'm not asking that action be taken against you. I'm simply asking for more admin eyes, as I feel you reacted with aggressive retribution in the past. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's possibly a copyright violation, it should be removed immediately pending peer review. There is no suggestion being made that Mkati is using copyright policy to game the system, which would be a problem. This would also be a problem if Mkati were ignoring some discussion that had already taken place, but the petitioner doesn't suggest that is happening. According to the complaint itself there is nothing here requiring administrative action. causa sui (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors can of course delete blatant vandalism. And I would extend that to blatant copyright violations. Mkat's most recent deletion was certainly nothing of the sort, however -- not a copyvio at all, and certainly not a blatant copyvio.

As with involved editors in wp:admin, by analogy, "administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor ... and disputes on topics". As WP:ADMIN indicates, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a stretch. Involvement is construed broadly so that we can discourage administrators from gaming the system to enforce their own positions in content disputes. According to your own account there isn't any reason to believe that that is what he is doing, and I don't understand you to be implying that either. If I'm reading you correctly, your argument is strictly procedural. Since it is a much bigger danger to include a copyvio than to remove a non-copyvio, it would be better to convince the interested parties that the edits aren't actually copyvios. Then we could move on. causa sui (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a stretch at all. WP:ADMIN clearly indicates the concern: "involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." Such is the case here. Repeated deletions, at an article in the ARBPIA content area, by an admittedly involved sysop. No credible claim of copyvio. Zero talk page discussion, while making the deletions. That this is being done in the highly sensitive ARBPIA area heightens concern as to the approach. There's no need to throw around an accusation such as "gaming the system to enforce their own positions", however apt it might be. Hopefully, the eyes of admins on this will help us avoid future problems.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. You violated copyright policies for years. Our policies now allow the "indiscriminate removal" of the information you added during that period. You are fortunate that I am not taking "indiscriminate removal" to the full extent to which it is allowed. Any editor can remove your information -- it has nothing to do with being an administrator, I am not acting as one, but even if I was, I will not hesitate to block you if you continue to disrupt the resolution of your CCI. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Indiscriminate removal should mean being fairly liberal in removing copyvios that are discovered from Epeefleche's edits, it does not mean removing information Epeefleche wrote just for the sake that he wrote it. That is disruptive. Silverseren^C 16:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Now you are playing with fire. Right now your actions aren't crossing the line into "INVOLVED" territory since you aren't using sysop tools or acting as an admin. When you threaten to block, you are toeing the line, and when you block, you are crossing it. I have no idea what is going on with this dispute or the CCI so what you are saying may or may not be true. But if you think Epeefleche is doing something that warrants a block, I'd strongly urge you to get someone outside the dispute to step in. causa sui (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Arab Spring

Resolved

A request for semi-protection was made for the Arab Spring article some time ago that hasn't been addressed yet. The editor causing the disruption has hopped IPs a few times and is still persistently trying to force an edit through. Could someone look into semi-protection for this page, please? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess the request for semi was only an hour ago, got my UTC times mixed up. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Courcelles has handled this, much appreciated. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Occupy Las Vegas

Already a report at WP:3RRNB, but nothing is happening there. Dr. JTT (talk · contribs) has been deleting sourced information and replacing it with unsourced information, refuses all discussion, and he is up to 9RR (yep, nine RR). Multiple users have asked him to stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not counting his first edit, I think that was eight...but geez. Blocked 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Who R you?

Pretty gross civility violation here by Who R you? (talk · contribs), who remains unrepentant after receiving friendly advice. Not the first time – his talk page is littered with incivilities, and he is polluting the atmosphere with his flaming at WT:UE. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no call for that, or for this either for that matter. I've issued a warning but given just what little I've seen of his behavior would have no problem with a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• He posted yet another blatant personal attack just a few moments ago. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• This hot off the presses. I suppose you could count me as part of the "scum [that is] always around to abuse the process and whine and complain how they aren't treated nicely by the people they're fucking over". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• It's part of a broader problem; there's plenty more like this Apparently I'm pulling a "slimy scumbag trick" by alluding to a source; Who R U is quite sure that sources don't exist and I'm making it up, although they carefully avoid calling me a liar. I've since explicitly linked to a source; but I'm sure we'll get another bad-faith TL;DR rant on that thread and in many others. Also, creating that wikiproject was just an attempted end-run around all those people who disagree with Who at the proper page; Who has a mission to remove diacritics, and mere consensus cannot be allowed to stand in the way of that mission. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't abbreviate his name as "Who". It tends to creates the Who's on First? effect. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• For another example, anybody who takes the time to read through the epic comments here will find an abundance of bad faith and sniping at other editors - for instance "P.S. Did they not even try to make the word lé to make it appear more foreign? Incroyable, ces enfants stupides!". bobrayner (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As one of the non-scum and also a non-admin, I think temporary ban from all discussions involving English language might circumvent this, as the English language discussions seems to be the trigger of these outbursts. Then again, saying that probably makes me scum. ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I love this rant. In the very same paragraph where he complains of people "abusing process", he insists that the solution to the likely deletion of his project is to find an admin willing to restore to user space... in abuse of process. Less concerning than his incivility (which to me are merely the ramblings of a zealot) is various comments about how it is better to let him keep his project rather than force them to rely on email, etc. Such comments have a very WP:EEML feel to them, and are of a far greater concern to this project than Who R's inability to handle dissenting viewpoints. Resolute 14:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is plain ridiculous. Talks about people abusing the system and wasting peoples time all the while he is attempting to do both. But you are right that does sound like a similar case to the WP:EEML. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe there may have been some kind of offsite coordination in the diacriticals controversy in the past, although the attempt at creating a pov-pushing project is at least open to all viewers (but participation is limited to those who agree with Who R U). However, offsite coordination is very hard to prove (it's all very well suspecting it, but I've only actually uncovered it once, on Astrology). I'm curious as to how a couple of people on that side of the debate found and joined the wikiproject so soon - at first glance I didn't see any talkpage notification (which would have been canvassing anyway). Perhaps it's mere coincidence, and there are people who check the directory of wikiprojects every day for interesting new projects to join... bobrayner (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm a suspect, but I discovered the new WikiProject via following the creator's contributions. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Who R you? (talk · contribs) has also used more "conventional" canvassing; see this and this for example. Just by reading the RMs one gets the impression that the community's position on many moves is evenly split, or swinging towards removal of diacriticals; but in reality, one side is very good at "getting out the vote". bobrayner (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, it looks like there's not much good faith on either side [126] [127]. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, tempers are fraying on both sides, and I fear it may become a vicious circle. I would argue that the diff you present is not an ideal response to this rant, but it's certainly understandable: "Apparently living in Czechoslovakia has left you out of touch with the real world... Regardless of your inability to comprehend... scum are always around to abuse the process and whine and complain how they aren't treated nicely by the people they're fucking over..." - and there are many other diffs with a similar tone. Even if Who R you's canvassing and manipulation and mendacious misinterpretation of policy were to stop instantly, it is almost impossible for other editors to have a reasoned and civil discussion amid so many angry comments. Even hitherto calm editors can get sucked into the maelstrom. bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, this little gem shows that they're willing to game the system to stay "on the right side of" the PA line. Even without directly making an attack against anyone, there is still sufficient sustained violation of civility that this warrants a block. --Blackmane (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • For someone so involved in matters like does he really not realise Czechoslovakia hasn't existed for nearly 19 years or is he just being dumb? Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good faith should be assumed only until overwhelming evidence of the contrary. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• And he's at it again. I'm pretty sure, given his history of personal attacks and a warning to cease and desist from them - [128] - that this is blockable; see the comments in the third new section and his closing at the bottom of the diff. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, he is not the only editor commenting on other editors there. The real problem is that what he says about the other editors' behaviour is verifiably false. Contrast this:

  • "The purpose [of WikiProject English] is to enforce one particular interpretation of policy. An interpretation that does not have consensus, and in fact if anything is in a minority when it comes to actual practice." -- "You and your buddies keep making the same claims that there is no consensus and that I'm only following one interpretation, and yet I keep providing word-for-word quotes of the policies and asking you to explain how it is that you're intepreting them and you never respond.  I take that to mean that you can't figure out how to twist words like "… follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language …" to your purposes, and you know you'd look like a fool if you tried; so instead you use the common childish tactic of baseless accusation in the hopes that no one will consider your words too carefully." [129]

  With this, this or this gem:

  • "[...] I'm still waiting for your reply as to why WP should ignore the sources; or is it the ol', because a small group of people continuously bring this subject up in one forum after another, fail to get consensus, and repeat, justification. And I've noticed that other people get complaints filed against them for disruptive editing for having dared to violate the private rules that WP:Hockey made up to replace all the other rules that say follow the RS. Funny how sometimes if you harass people enough they just give up rather than try to combat the private agenda of some. Maybe now more people can comment here as well as at Talk:Marek Židlický and this continuous disruption that's been going on for years can finally be stopped. [...]" -- "Because not all reliable sources are reliable for the spelling of a name. You've read all the discussions by the looks of the lists you wrote so you have likely seen the large number of reasons that have been given ad naseum. [...] Most likely things would have changed by now to include them had it not been for some hardline 'not in my country' editors who keep trying to bring it up in every forum possible and while making attacks on anyone who disagrees with them stating that they are only doing it because of mother country pride and the like. We are an encyclopedia, our goal is to provide information. Cutting out the proper spelling of someones name is counter to that goal. We should follow the establish usage of other reference works which in many (not all) cases use them as well as the highly respected manuals of style such as the AMA, APA, Chicago Manual of Style. It is crazy that wikipedia wants to be a reference work but we would ignore what reference works and the major style guides suggest we do and instead rely on sports reporters. Sports reporters are hardly reliable for the proper spelling of a name in a lot of cases." [130]

  That guy is repeating the same nonsense over and over. When you bother to refute it, he drops out of the conversation and occasionally one of his allies comes in instead, although more often there is no response at all. Then shortly afterwards, in a different thread or elsewhere in the same thread, he makes the same absurd claims again, and sometimes even explicitly denies the mere existence of the responses to which he closes his ears. If a project built on WP:CONSENSUS as its main decision making process tolerates this kind of behaviour for too long, it may as well close down. Hans Adler 10:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson: likely breach of the conditions of his ban

Background

In August PMAnderson was notified of his year-long topic ban by admin Elen of the Roads in these words, which I extract from his talkpage (and I underline for convenience):

Outcome of community discussion
There is no point in blocking now for civility issues occurring previously. Let us instead see if we can prevent repetition. Since all are agreed that WP:MOS is the current flashpoint, and there is a very considerable consensus that you need to stay away from it for some considerable time, let us try this. You are Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language, including this talkpage, for a period of one year. I note that you have already agreed to leave this area alone, so I do not anticipate an enforcement issue, but if you should breach the ban, you can expect to be blocked for one week for a first offence and for the residuum of the topic ban for a repeat offence. If during the topic ban period, another substantial issue to do with civility, tendentious editing, personal attacks and/or disruption should arise, I have to advise that you face being banned from Wikipedia permanently. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That text, or very similar, can be found at the original ANI discussion page dedicated to the case. See also subsequent discussion.

The current incident

Neutrality recently posted at PMAnderson's talkpage (diff) to advise him of a discussion at WT:MOS, and PMAnderson responded at Neutrality's talkpage (diff). I quote PMAnderson's post in full:

All I am permitted to say
You have mistaken WP:MOS for a useful page, one full of advice derived by consensus from the actual practice of English writing. Observe who, and how few, defend it; observe whether their practice is based on English, or indeed on reason; observe how those who object are insulted and silenced (I have been silenced).
Then, if you see fit, do what I do: ignore it and write English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Though I did not bring the action at WP:ANI that resulted in PMAnderson's ban, I supported it – as one of the main victims of his disruption, incivility, and threats. I supported the ban in good faith and with clean hands, in the interest of the peaceful development of the Manual of Style – which had been disrupted by PMAnderson's activities, and which since his departure has benefited from a harmonious and collegial atmosphere. Productive work on WP:MOS has been able to resume.

Now I come here in the same spirit. It seems that PMAnderson is in breach of his ban. Rather than simply inform Neutrality that he was topic-banned and could not participate, he took the opportunity to denigrate the core style guide for the Project, and to revile the editors most dedicated to its maintenance. I am among them, as I should declare here. It is not for me to judge how PMAnderson ought to be dealt with, but I feel justified in advising the community of his recent behaviour. I leave it in the hands of those experienced in dealing with such recalcitrant abusiveness to determine what action might be appropriate.

Noetica^Tea? 10:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be verging on triviality as a complaint. Find something a teensy bit more substantive as a violation. And have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you might care to read Elen's decision. The text is above, underlined. The community discussion that led to this was so long and full of complaint against Mr Anderson that it had to be transferred to a sub-page. Community sanctions are either enforced properly or they may as well be disregarded by everyone. Which is it to be? Tony (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not an admin, so perhaps I'm not supposed to be commenting here. But there are two separate issues: one is a breach of WP:CIV, and the other a breach of the specific ban.

• Civility. I'm unable to find any criteria under "Identifying incivility" that would allow us to characterize these remarks as uncivil. Nor are they disruptive: User:Neutrality asked for Pmanderson's opinion, and PMA explained on the user's talk page why he couldn't discuss the particulars of the query. In informing Pmanderson of this ANI action, Noetica even makes it quite clear that he's pursuing an old grudge.
• MOS ban. The technical issue is whether these very broad comments constitute a violation of the ban. I take the ban to mean that Pmanderson cannot discuss matters of style, either the guidelines on points of style as outlined on MOS pages, or the specifics of style on article talk pages or any other WP space. I don't take the ban as a sort of non-disclosure agreement, where he is forbidden even to say "I have disagreements with the MOS about whether the guidelines reflect correct English usage, and therefore I'm not allowed to discuss this with you." Which is all he really said. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic bans are (or should be) enacted to prevent disruption, not so we can have games of gotcha. IMHO this falls squarely in the latter.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It's more of a bitter comment on his ban, which is understandable, than about the MOS anyway. Let it be. --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cynwolfe. No breach of the ban has happened here. Pmanderson was asked to comment to a single editor on their user talk page. That is not the same thing as taking part in a discussion. The comment wasn't uncivil, albeit fueled by frustration perhaps, and their comments were not about any of the content of WP:MOS.--v/r - TP 15:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Arguably uncivil, but I don't think it's a violation of his topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Clear breach.

This is not the first time that PMA has tested the limits and violated the letter of what was, by all accounts, a rather mild sanction, relative to the strong consensus to block him for a long time. A one-week block as a reminder of the terms that he must operate under is certainly justified; campaigning against the Manual of Style, even on a user talk page, is not OK. The terms of his ban instruct admins to block him for a week in response; I hope one will make that more than a hollow threat. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So what would you do to prevent others from inviting his comment in the future? Put a large banner on his talk page saying "Don't feed the Don't discuss WP:MOS with PManderson"?--v/r - TP 16:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no strong consensus to block him for a long time ? I made the vote to block was 21 (for) - 16 (against), which is definitely not a consensus. Elen's block is way OTT, IMO. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to put a warning on somebodies talkpage when (s)he has a topic ban, similar to the warning when somebody is blocked? It is quite possible that another editor will not know about a topic ban. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wat does the MoS say about using words like "residuum"? Count Iblis (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any breach of his topic ban. And it's at the thin edge of the wedge of incivility, but seeing as how it's on his Talk page we usually allow a little more lattitude there. I don't think any action is required... --HighKing (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Kudpungs improper use of speedy delete

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

---

Kudpung speeded power to hire and fire without consulting it's talk page and then immediately went nonresponsive. This is not appropriate administrator action. I want their bit removed or serious counciling for them regarding their use of tools. I am attempting to notify them of this but am having client difficulties and would appreciate assistance giving them an ani notification. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this for real? No diffs, possibly too many pints, and a request for de-sysop? Sleep it off, eh? Doc talk 11:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remove your personal attack immediately. I'm on a client that has serious limitations. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack? There was none and you should know it. Doc talk 11:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"possibly too many pints" please, attempting to dismiss another editor by accusing them of substance abuse is a direct attack on their person. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't do that again, Doc9871. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

He was suggesting a desyop, Thumperward. I... am gonna hold my tongue. Warning noted. Thank you. Doc talk 12:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please calm down, Fifelfoo, stop throwing angry accusations around, and try to explain what you think has happened in calm and unemotional terms - give us the timeline, provide diffs, and show us the steps you took to contact the admin directly with your concerns. And please provide a redlink to the actual article title so that other admins can examine your claims -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Power to hire and fire
• demand for undeletion

you're welcome. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• • thanks, my client is a mobile client. Within 2 minutes of the deletion the administrator had stopped responding. I had provided a rationale against the deletion on the deleted talk page which directly addressed the claimed deletion rationale. The speed of the deletion, the failure to read the talk page and the delete and logics behaviour is uncivil. It magnifies the existing power disparity between user and admin and cements it for any non-expert user. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Fifelfoo, I read the deleted article and it appeared to be a WP:DICDEF, with vague references to a number of possible IWW members. I would strongly suggest you continue discussing this with Kudpung; in the alternative, you know where WP:REFUND is.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, quick look - Fifelfoo objected to the deletion, and instead of civilly approaching the deleting admin and asking for an explanation, instead posted an angry demand for its reinstatement - which is not the way to get a speedy and helpful response from someone. Then Fifelfoo brought the matter here just an hour later, demanding desysop, which shows extreme impatience at least. Fifelfoo, you need to calm down, approach people in a much less angry manner, and give them time to consider their replies - making polite requests rather than exploding angrily is the only way you'll get anywhere. There is absolutely no admin action needed here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

speedies actioned in under one day with academic papers cited and with the speedy talk page structure followed by users but not by admins? Yes I'm angry and rightfully so. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Kudpung made a mistake. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, then there's no choice then but to desysop. I mean, there could have been a mistake here. Nice knowin' ya, Kudpung. Doc talk 12:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful. You should stop being not helpful, or at least do it somewhere other than the main drama board. Fifelfoo, the phrase "power to hire and fire" is not even mentioned on Industrial Workers of the World right now; the right time to split to its own article would be some (long) time in the future when a split is required for length. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Kudpung made a mistake is not the issue here - people, even admins doing Speedy Deletion work - can make mistakes. The issue is whether it should be here at ANI, and no, it most certainly should not be! Instead of exploding with anger, demanding the article's reinstatement, and demanding the desysop of the admin because he did not instantly comply, Fifelfoo should have behaved the way civilised and collegial Wikipedia editors are expected to, and discussed it politely over at Kudpung's Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)

1. No civil attempt to discuss [131] [132] there or here - per WP:DR.
2. The patroller's deletion criterion was appropriate and after checking met with my approval.
3. Wrong noticeboard - if any, the place is WP:DELREV.
4. No one, whether editor, admin, or any other volunteer is expected to jump to orders.
5. And the 'client'? This is Wikipedia.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "client" in Fifelfoo's post refers to his user agent rather than a customer: he's presumably on a mobile device of some sort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:DELREV, not here. A point to note: the process outlined there says clearly: "# Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question'. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look." Of course we may be past this now and courtesy may have been the first casualty. But it would have been a better course than an immediate report here, which WP:DELREV notes should be a last resort when everything else has been tried. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The irony of Kudpung, one of the very few admins willing to run at the horrific mess that is NPP head-on, being dragged here (complete with a call for desysopping) is rather stunning. Every once in a while, I'd like to see the article creator take some responsibility when their article gets tagged/deleted; it's not like NPPers can read your mind. I can assure you that Kudpung isn't a baby-mutilating deletionist looking to destroy the most possible terabytes of text. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Block review

User: Wheres Dan is fairly new and displays some trouble understanding what is and what is not a reliable source at Talk:Tribe of Dan and User talk:Wheres Dan. After he called another editor an anti-semite here I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating WP:NPA. I don't really block that often, so a review would be welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly cromulent block. Not only was that particular diff about a clear a personal attack as you get, but it was after a series of equally troublesome interactions. If 24 hours doesn't result in the required attitude adjustment I'd just up it to indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well within reasonable to me.--v/r - TP 14:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good block. I only wish other examples of incivility when they're coming from not-so-new editors were dealt with this swiftly. causa sui (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Doncram creating unacceptable articles in mainspace again

Doncram (talk · contribs), after coming back from a 3-month break for disruptive editing, has created this article. Either he or I need an indef block, and at this point, I don't think I care which. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)