Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Resuming AuthorityTam ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#AuthorityTam Nobody Ent 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As anticipated, AuthorityTam waited for the dust to settle on this ANI, and has now resumed similar conduct.[1] (The addition in the section "RfC: Reinstatement in lead section" dishonestly quotes me; my response is here.) Now that he has resumed editing, AuthorityTam should provide a more appropriate response regarding his conduct, and the previous suggested courses of action should be further considered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This has shown a clear and on-going pattern of disruptive behaviour in editing, especially in regards to several editors (Jeffro and BlackCab). As I predicted in the last, interminably long, but never-solved ANI incident, that the same case would be brought back again and again, once a month, until some sanctions are imposed. I have been involved in neither dispute, except for the ANI recaps. I therefore propose a one week block from editing Wikipedia for AuthorityTam, or a topic ban of a minimum 30 days' length from all articles even tangentially related to the Jehovah Witness religion for the same. Each incident in itself may not warrant a block, but, pursuant to "civil POV pushing" (an essay somewhere on here), all the shit together more than justifies one, as it establishes a pattern which the editor does knot seem to acknowledge is disruptive (that it is, is evidenced by being dragged to ANI ad nauseam). (Edit: this fits the very definition of a "preventative block", as it seems that this behaviour continues like the Energizer Bunny.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can not see the deal here. It is making a big case out of something that isn't. He quoted Jeffro, and wanted to use Jeffro's statement as a reason for editing the article. It could be stoped by reverting the edit, and make a ordinary discussion in the talk page, not reopening this case. I suggest to at least shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it. I am sure it will be more discussions regarded and including AutTam, but as I've stated before, the article need opinionholders challenging some of the existing one at the talk page, as it appears very few of the contributers can keep a completely neutral tone when it comes to the topic (even though, some of the users at least try). Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no consensus on the last ANI and little contribution from the community at large -- just lots of squabbling amongst three editors (all of whom could improve the collegiality and civility of their interaction style). Block all 3, ban all 3, or block or ban none. Refer to WP:DR. Nobody Ent 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have previously tried simply reverting his irrelevant tendentious comments about other editors (namely, me) from user Talk. He restores them, and then complains even more. This behaviour was also mentioned at the previous ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, this is no closer to a resolution than when it started. I understand everyone has the right of reply, but you guys are just going in circles here, and making it extremely difficult for anyone outside the dispute to determine exactly what the "problem" is and what you want done about it. The admin action needed here at this point is for someone uninvolved to step in, hat most of the above, and try to keep the discussion focused. Or, even better, just close it as I don't see where any action is likely to be taken at this point. Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaand about 90% of the circular discussion has been archived, so thanks to whoever did that. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

[non admin yawn] Again? - I don't watch the page, or any of those pages, but it has spilled over into non-JW topic areas before. As the last time it seems that the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors are as bad or worse than the one apparently pro-JW editor, as illustrated by the disproportionate amount of noise from the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors on the last attempt to get the pro-JW editor banned at ANI. This latest one simply has the pro-JW editor noting they tried to get him banned at ANI, and the anti-JW saying "Another lie" (¿En serio? Is that a WP:BOOMERANG I see?) If it's anything admin action shouldn't be one sided, it should be for all 3, e.g. JW-topic blocks for 1 month and warmly invite contributions to the wealth of non-JW articles on WP needing attention... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an "anti-JW" editor. I'm a "non-JW" editor; I don't consider their beliefs any more irrational than the beliefs of other religions. Aside from that, he did lie. When I said that no one had tried to have him banned, that was in fact the case. 3 days later, I did conditionally agree with a suggestion by another editor that if AuthorityTam is unable to modify his behaviour, a topic ban may be in order. AuthorityTam selectively quoted part of that statement, ignoring the order of events, to make it appear that I was 'trying to have him banned' and that I had previously lied about it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

With all the bad blood swirling around between a small group of editors, I don't see any hope for a resolution/reconciliation in that regard. The ultimate goal is the overall improvement of the JW articles, not the appeasement of certain editor's hurt egos. So I think the unfortunate result is that if you all want to continue editing the JW articles, then you're going to have to deal with each other, like it or not...or everyone is going to be looking at a topic ban in the future. Perhaps being able to provide evidence from this point forward that you did not further personalize the dispute may prevent that from happening if/when this is brought up at ANI again. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Within half an hour of AuthorityTam resuming editing (after an absence that coincided with the ANI while closer attention might be paid to his editing behaviour), he returned to the same petty retributive (and dishonest) behaviour as before. He's clearly not interested in 'playing nicely', and he simply ignored input from other editors at the previous ANI who confirmed that his behaviour is inappropriate.

It is not the case that only three editors complained in the previous ANI. Several editors agreed there are problems with AuthorityTam's behaviour, and an independent editor made several suggestions.

It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages. Other editors suggested that a topic ban may be in order, and I agree that may be suitable if he is otherwise unable to acknowledge his inappropriate behaviour and cease it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

[Jeffro77 notified me]As I have mentioned previously I couldn't still find what is so wrong with AuthorityTam's editing, other than shouting and crying for crucify him. In fact when I compared some edit history of all these three involved editors, ironically I found that AuthorityTam never used any of those type of harsh/debasing words that the other two editors used. So it seems to me that the main problem here is a long time discomfort towards AuthorityTam by the other two editors, because he have won/Wikipedia have won many of the debates involving the other two editors in those related talk pages. Also whenever these other editors express their discomfort in talk pages, AuthorityTam gives evidence of their own same mistake by posting back talk pages and then goes own silent. This may screw up the other two editors but in fact it gives the point that the accusing editors should try to improve first before accusing other. As some other editor suggested we need to shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it.--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'd be interested to see the diffs of the supposedly "harsh/debasing words" Fazilfazil (a pro-JW editor defending another pro-JW editor) is accusing me of. There is no particular 'discomfort' about AuthorityTam 'winning debates' about article content; no track record is kept of how many 'debates' AuthorityTam has 'won', but even if his views are accepted more frequently than those of others (though I'm not aware that's the case), it has nothing to do with the complaints raised here. I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs (this factor of bias is in fact the determining criteria for AuthorityTam's expressions of contempt). (Even at the previous ANI AuthorityTam again presented his specious 'evidence' [a claim based on an ambiguous edit from 7 years ago] that I'm a former member though he's been explicitly told I have no status with the organisation.) It is not the case that AuthorityTam merely defends himself at Talk rather than starting problems, such as he did with his oblique disingenuous claim that BlackCab's removal of content that violated WP:FORUM was in some way 'interesting'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to waste the time with digging out those words, I have posted some in the previous discussion. First of all although you frequently claim that you are not a former JWs, your style of editing appears to be those typical among self-claiming former Witnesses. Not only me, many other editors have expressed this implication. For one reason, it is very difficult for a common person to understand the deep teachings of JWs unless he have studied the basic Bible teachings with them. So my intuition is that you mostly use Watchtower library (for others sake: which contains all JWs publications in digital format) and come up either as a support to user:BlackCab's interpretations or being silent when he have an irrelevant point. It is not typical among an atheist to be only attacking on a particular religion. Since you and BlackCab are the frequent opposers towards AuthorityTam (in many cases I can see his arguments finally proves to be correct) it is of no wonder that he show other editors about former witness bias. Another thing is sometime you take silly things and explicitly claim that other editor lied (I believe even once towards me though I ignored it) but they might was never intended a lie. I don't want to involve in this discussion much since I feel its a waste of time and irritating. I would advice you to calm down and raise this issue if AuthorityTam showed obvious incivility towards you with a specific clear evidence. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, I have relatives in the religion and am closely familiar with it. However, I do not owe any editor any such explanation. The claim that I simply try to support BlackCab is ridiculous because I've edited Wikipedia for several years longer than him. I have already provided evidence of AuthorityTam's improper behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Aside from Fazilfazil reply, who seems also quite frustrated, I would like to encourage both of you to assume good faith WP:AGF. I expressed my viewpoint of the situation on AuthorityTam' Talk page. User_talk:AuthorityTam#You.27re_maybe_not_aware_of..._.2B. However, Jeffro77 immediately started to reply on my personal message to AT, which I felt unwelcome. AuthorityTam do not answer so far on my post, although I assume that he perhaps read it. Originally, I wanted only notice him about some pages and summarize my viewpoint on the subject. But when Jeffro77 arrived, I tried to serve there as mediator and suggested solution. Jeffro77 felt the situation otherwise. --FaktneviM (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF doesn't apply when the editor has all but proclaimed that they are working in bad faith with a certain section of the Wikipedia community. Although, as I point out, my own interactions with AT have been nothing but cordial (in fact, receiving support from him) because I (1) don't work often in the area, and (2) haven't proposed anything that pissed him off or that got me on his "shit list", so to speak, based on the previous AN/I, he won't respond until this AN/I is over and has blown over, and he'll be back up to antagonizing Jeff and BlackCab (aka LtSally!) and this case will be back to AN/I (as, during the last AN/I, he ceased editing according to the same pattern). I have a spidey-sense that this will eventually be attempted to be escalated to arbitration. Fazil: stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. This is not about winning debates or scoring points or editors' possible former religious affiliations or "WP:TRUTH", it is about building an encyclopedia. I find it incredibly hard to WP:AGF when faced with a series of posts that so clearly demonstrate the battleground mentality.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

JohnChrysostom: I don't know AuthorityTam much as we met rarely. In most situations I felt it similar like you. His conduct is focused on content and he is cordial. I do not expect it, but if he would like to persistently continue with this non-responding and later attacking style, some temporary restriction of editing 'Talk pages' could be reasonable. But this resumed ANI is not the case. Single edit is not adequate for any action. Thus the ANI should be terminate. // Fazilfazil: I would like to see more co-operation within JWs articles. Hence continuous speculations if User:Jeffro77 is apostasy or not are not useful at all. He specifically wrote here “I never formally identified as a JW”, which I believe to be the exceptional truth. This express is common for those who leaved from the congregation during Bible Study with Witnesses or meanwhile in state of being Unbaptised publisher. That is similar if he raised in JW family and not identified himself with it. In every case that is not important. Some editors may decide practice shunning on Jeffro and BlackCab (like AuthorityTam' 3rd person comments), but generally "division" of editors to pro-JW group and ex-JW or anti-JW group (such division of editors is invention by the two mentioned above and cause unpleasant contact amongst articles' editors). Hence I suppose that another talking on this matter is not useful. Here is the irony that BlackCab since his start on Wikipedia openly said so and never hide it. I respect him more for that. I also believe that both of them are sincere with their motives on editing Wikipedia. It is said that BlackCab at least tried to solve common issues which I raised, while Jeffro often simply dismiss all as irrelevant. However, despite of that, it is unlikely that they edit this topic if they want to be evil only. So some mutual agreement is hardly to do, but it is 'must have'. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You claim that AuthorityTam's "conduct is focused on content and he is cordial." If that were the case, this ANI or the last one would not have been raised. Specific statements made by AuthorityTam at article Talk about other editors have already been cited at this and the last ANI, and it is that behaviour that I explicitly requested that he cease.

I have never summarily dismissed any specific editor's comments as irrelevant merely on the basis of who made them. Where there is any ambiguity, I have always provided a reason why something is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

* Comment {Jeffro77 notified me} After reviewing the edit in question, I cannot for the life of me figure out what is so appalling in the edit that it brings us here to yet another ANI. My only conclusion is that this must be some feeble attempt at character assassination or some ill advised smear campaign. Unless I am looking at the wrong edit, I find nothing offensive in AT's edit at all and do in fact find this ANI to be the more offensive occurrence. Here is the edit I think is being addressed, please let me know if I have the wrong one: :::"The article currently states, "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature." None of the cited references explicitly supports the claim that JWs are "cautioned against reading other religious literature", rather, the references show a "caution" against reading "books like this one" and "religious literature that promotes lies". I've edited the sentence to: "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications.". --AuthorityTam (talk)3:33 am, 29 April 2012, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)" I am completely at a loss for finding anything offensive in that edit, so, exactly why are we here if not just for the purpose of stirring the pot? Willietell (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Having found the edit in question, I see only an editor defending himself against an accusation of being a liar. Perhaps if the editor who raised the ANI doesn't wish for such evidence to be presented, them he should AGF and cease calling other editors dishonest, thus eliminating the need for a response that he may find offensive. In short, Play Nice, because your own offensive words(calling other editors a liar) may come back to haunt you when they present evidence to the contrary. Willietell (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

He was not 'defending himself against an accusation of being a liar'; the misleading selective quote itself constituted a lie, with no regard to the actual order of events or my actual conditional statement. I see no reason why I should put up with that, particularly when the statement was appended to 'discussion' that had ostensibly ended weeks ago. The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs. As noted by JohnChrysostom above, AuthorityTam's response so far has simply been to 'lay low' during and shortly after the ANI process, and then return to the previous behaviour; he did this at the last ANI, and also did the same thing a couple of years ago when an admin instructed him to strike false statements about me at several AfDs (which he failed to do).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Obviously, as User:Quinn1 post here, “this is no closer to a resolution than when it started.” and “but you guys are just going in circles here”. Is there anyone, (nonJWtopics' editor preferred), who can propose better solution than Quinn1 wrote here, simply “Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay?” [2] If AuthorityTam and all others involved in JWtopics will trying to assume good faith and not focus on persons, but on content, there will be fewer ANIs needed in future. Perhaps none. --FaktneviM (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If AuthorityTam ceases the behaviour, the matter will not need to return to ANI. What about the suggestions already made by User:JohnChrysostom (a "nonJWtopics' editor")?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JohnChrysostom is hardly an uninvolved and unbiased editor here, certainly he has contributed in discussions which have involved all three editors as well as myself. I think that the editors involved need to make a more determined effort to work for the betterment of the article instead of seemingly trying to "pick" at one another and "goad" one another into an uncivil response. But that is just a personal observation, and I may be misinterpreting their intent. I will attempt to AGF. Willietell (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He's only really been 'involved' to the extent that he's provided comment on the behaviour he's observed. It's unclear why you imagine JohnChrysostom to be 'biased', or what specific bias you imagine him to hold. He's not a JW, if that's what you mean, but then a JW wouldn't be unbiased either. He identifies on Wikipedia as a Christian, eliminating any supposed 'atheist' bias; I've seen no indication that he's a former JW, or that he has had any particular involvement with JWs. It seems that your definition of 'unbiased' is 'agrees with you'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I'm completely uninvolved (was browsing the AN/I threads for interest). I have no connection to the JW, and have never that I remember edited a JW-related article (if I did, it probably was a bio of a JW who happened to be in my own areas of interest). I propose an interaction ban between the two editors, a warning to both on the subject of neutrality in JW-related articles, a warning to both about WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and a warning especially to AuthorityTam about bad-faith accusations of bias based on another editor's perceived religion. The warnings should include an explicit mention of sanctions if behavior does not improve. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your impartial insight. I started official propose as you suggested. --FaktneviM (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had made my position clear, but it seems Jeffro77 (talk) doesn't quite understand my clearly stated position, thus I will state it briefly again, just for clarification "User:JohnChrysostom is hardly an uninvolved and unbiased editor here, certainly he has contributed in discussions which have involved all three editors as well as myself." Notice that this did not require an opinion about who he chooses to agree with or how much involvement he has had with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, but simply his participation in discussions involving the three editors in question as well as myself. If I can be of assistance in making my position any clearer in the future, please continue to let me know. Additionally, I don't feel that any harsher sanctions should be applied to AT than to any of the other two editors in question, because there are no innocent victims here. Willietell (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand your position. I just don't agree with you. But it hardly matters because another entirely uninvolved party just responded above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As with the last ANI, AuthorityTam is 'laying low' rather than acknowledging his part in causing problems and ceasing the behaviour. If, when he returns, he simply ceases the behaviour, it may not be necessary to return here. However, if no action is taken and the behaviour continues, the issue will be raised here again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

[non-admin cherry stones]. "laying low" = "turning the other cheek"? I'd sort of been assuming that there's no smoke without fire and that an accusation against a JW doesn't need evidence to condemn. However if you actually look at the link Jeffro posted in evidence [3] all it shows is AuthorityTam notifying the page of the ANI, and Jeffro being caught calling AT a "liar," and then AT posting Jeffro's own words to show that he hadn't lied and Jeffro seems to have forgotten what he said at ANI. Is there any editor on ANI who wouldn't have responded in exactly the same way? At this point in terms of disruption it all seems to be coming from Jeffro, and although not an admin or an expert in JWism if this isn't WP:Boomerang, what is? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No. AuthorityTam partially quoted, without regard to context, a conditional statement I made three days later, in response to a suggestion by another editor. No such mention of 'banning' had been made at the time AuthorityTam made the claim. The actual sentence, in response to a suggestion by JohnChrysostom, that AuthorityTam partially quoted was "If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order." Support of the suggestion was also explicitly marked "Provisional".[4]--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Interaction ban propose (with all consequences Jorgath offered) [5]

Support I support this idea, but I think it should not be permanent. I suggest tentatively for 3 weeks. If next conflicts will continue after end, it should be applied again for longer period. But certainly not forever. --FaktneviM (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - At the last ANI, AuthorityTam claimed that his disingenuous comments about other editors do not constitute 'interaction', and he made the claim that—while making such accusations—he was actually 'avoiding' contact with those same editors. AuthorityTam would therefore need to be told explicitly what any 'interaction ban' would include.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • An interaction ban means you don't talk to the other user, you don't talk about the other user, you don't comment if someone brings up the other user's name, and you stay away from editing the same articles just to be safe. In short, you behave on-wiki as if they and the articles they work on do not exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Question: Do you think is it appropriate to apply it on BlackCab? I suppose that likely yes, because many comments were towards BlackCab, perhaps even more than on Jeffro77. BlackCab also participated in discussion against AT. Since the start of 'first' ANI, it was 3-person dispute. I didn't participate on those previous disputes. Some editors could still think that 'tag-team' and 'JW watchdogs' and other similar expressions are corresponding to reality at Wikipedia. However, there are no innocent editors on each side. Please comment. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support as initial proposer. I didn't name a length above, but considering the apparent hostility I would say 6 weeks would be more appropriate for the initial ban. I also support formal warnings that continued behavior of this sort might also lead to topic bans, but no topic bans yet. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, the topic need a more balanced view, and AuthorityTam is an important contributor with unique knowledges about the topic and the ability to give the topics discussion a balance. This proposal is strongly favouring the most active users, as it blocks out opinions and contributions from AuthorityTam, as I consider less active than some of the other users mentioned. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is simply wrong. Propose which Jorgath did and I supported contains sanctions and notifications of 'both sides'. Thus I don't understand why this could be bad for articles or for other editors. Simply those 2 or 3 persons will neither edit JWarticles, nor talking about other user names etc. (see Baseball Bugs contrib here). I think other editors can substitute them for some time and it cool down emotions amongst editors. I realized similar valuation like observed JohnChrysostom, who wrote here that some action have to be taken at all cost. Otherwise this dispute will come back continuously many times again with no result. In ictu Oculi and Quinn1 observed it similarly. There is very likely WP:Boomerang on AT oposers' side. I am not against AuthorityTam. I simply acknowledge that some revision between involved editors is absolutely needed or comes back here soon. I can imagine that some spontaneous self-censorship/self-control of other JWtopics editors have to be applied, each on himself (=Others have to be silent, no comments on account of those restricted, during interaction ban of those 2 or 3 editors). I hope that other JWtopics editors could cooperate normally or better after end of restrictions and this would help overall ambience amongst editors. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I cannot speak for BlackCab (who has been the target of AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour more often than me). But as far as I'm concerned, all that really needs to happen is AuthorityTam should acknowledge and cease the improper behaviour, which specifically includes making comments—directly, or by implication—about other editors he imagines to be former JWs; if he is able to modify his behaviour, there should be no problem with him continuing to contribute to JW-related articles. If he is unable to alter his behaviour, he needs to cease interacting with editors he is unable to work with. The fact of the matter is that after disappearing during the last ANI, upon returning AuthorityTam couldn't help himself for even half an hour before continuing to impugn another editor (namely, me) at article Talk. Jorgath's suggestion is ambiguous about who other than AuthorityTam might be included in any sanctions. Of course, I have no problem with not interacting with AuthorityTam if he abides by any imposed interaction ban.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, when I said "both" in my proposal, I meant you (Jeffro) and AuthorityTam. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Any interaction ban imposed on AuthorityTam would need to include BlackCab, who has been the primary target of AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour.

The terms of any such interaction ban would also need to be made clear, and would ideally not prevent discussion of article content. As I stated at the last ANI: "When not attacking or making oblique snide remarks about other editors, AuthorityTam is also capable of improving articles. Content-related debates at article Talk—even vigorous civil debates—can lead to gradual improvement of articles (a bit like tacking), and if AuthorityTam is to continue editing JW-related articles, it would be impractical to not discuss article content."--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I am going to have to oppose at this time unless someone says something to convince me otherwise, because I don't really see anything particularly egregious in ATam's comment. I see only an editor defending himself against what he feels is a false accusation of being a liar and providing evidence he feels supports this. In a way I can see his point of view, that being, if the editor was not trying to get him banned, what exactly did he hope to accomplish with the ANI in the first place? Later when the ban was proposed, both Blackcab and Jeffro77 supported it, whether conditionally or not, they supported it. I therefore see nothing sinister about ATam's posting those edits as evidence in his defense. That being the case, at this point, exactly what has he done that deserves some form of sanction? I see nothing! Who on this board would not like to provide evidence to the contrary if someone called you a liar? Usually, in such a circumstance, I don't justify such an accusation with a reply, but I am not like most people. Most people will reply, just like ATam did, with what they feel is supporting evidence. I personally think that calling a fellow editor a liar, especially when evidence can be provided to the contrary, borders on incivility, and a particular editor seems to have adopted this as his favorite phrase, using such an accusation against a number of editors. Perhaps, this incivility also needs to be addressed here. Willietell (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're still trying to stir the pot. I very clearly indicated that I would only support a topic ban as a last resort (though it should be noted that the action you are opposing is not a topic ban), and I only made that provisional statement days after AuthorityTam made the dishonest claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Willietell asks, "if the editor was not trying to get him banned, what exactly did he hope to accomplish with the ANI in the first place?" I have already been fairly unambiguous about the result I would prefer.

• April 2: "It seems AuthorityTam has not learned that his attacks on the motives of other editors are inappropriate and not relevant to discussions of specific topics related to JWs, and that such tangents certainly constitute 'interaction', even if AuthorityTam believes he is merely 'advising' other editors. (There are various channels of dispute resolution for editors to indicate such concerns.) AuthorityTam also needs to acknowledge that continuous claims about the motives of other editors constitute a personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's [former] affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream") and that frequently dredging up irrelevant edits that he believes to be incriminating constitutes harassment, and goes far beyond merely "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Specifically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that there is a massive difference between "BlackCab is a former JW" and "BlackCab aka LTSally said blah blah blah blah blah [x years ago]"—indeed, a comment from years ago may not even be a person's current view), and BlackCab's former membership of the religion is not a wildcard that can be played in any old editing dispute. Though most of his vitriol is vented about BlackCab, AuthorityTam is also to retract and refrain from his false claims that I have 'chosen to self-identify on Wikipedia', as it was explicitly explained to him at his Talk page over a year ago that "I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses". Basically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that, on occasion, AuthorityTam should just apologise."
• April 8: "The main problem relates to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages, which would not be addressed by a ban relating to article content. A better solution would be a ban on AuthorityTam making reference to other editors, by name or by implication, and address his comments at article Talk pages solely to article content."
• April 30: "It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages."
• May 1: "I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs"
• May 2: "The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs."
• May 6: "All that really needs to happen is AuthorityTam should acknowledge and cease the improper behaviour, which specifically includes making comments—directly, or by implication—about other editors he imagines to be former JWs."

I think it would be expecting a bit much for an apology from AuthorityTam, but what I have repeatedly and unambiguously requested is that he cease his improper behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, should be for all 3 - an "interaction ban" would have to cover BlackCab as well as Jeffro77 and Authority Tam. Also difficult to see how an "interaction ban" can work when the only topic areas 2 of the 3 editors edit are in JW-space anyway. How can the three editors continue editing the same controversial article together and not "interact"? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As I stated earlier, and as suggested by In ictu oculi above, it's unclear how an interaction ban would work while still working on articles related to the JW WikiProject. Despite claims by a couple of editors at the last ANI that AuthorityTam often has to 'defend' himself in a '2 against 1' situation, there are currently 2 regular non-JW editors and 5 regular pro-JW editors (AuthorityTam, Grrahnbahr, Fazilfazil, Faktnevi and Willietell, some of whom explicitly identify as JWs) involved with the JW project. Without regular editors representing a non-JW view, articles would rapidly be affected by bias. If the terms of any interaction ban were to relate to editors not referring to other editors but not preclude content-related discussion (which I have suggested from the outset), I would Support. However, if a proposed interaction ban implicitly amounts to a topic ban for the only regular non-JW editors, then I would Oppose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Jeffro77 makes several good points here. I have a feeling that, much as most of us may not like this, that maybe WP:ARBCOM should be consulted. It seems to me that discretionary sanctions on any disruptive edits by any individual is probably the best way to go here, and ArbCom is really the only place that such sanctions can be enacted. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: It leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, but I agree. I'd have preferred it if this could be resolved without going that far, mostly so that we could go to them if the problem continued. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my initial proposal of this same measure in the previous AN/I, for a limited time (no more than thirty days). If the antagonism continues, or if the terms of the interaction ban are repeatedly broken, I believe a thirty-day topic ban or short (fourteen days) outright block is in order, followed by standard escalating sanctions. Note that my support changes to oppose pursuant to Jeffro77's caveat speaking of a practical topic ban for non-Bible Student editors of JW articles. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I am highly disagree with the classifications used by Jeffro. I am a regular contributor, who have started several hundred articles within several topics, among them politicians and soccer players, but also philosphy and religion, and made significant contributions to several FA in Norwegian within different fields. His definition of non-JW-editors is editors supporting heavily use of sources made of defector and critics of JWs, rather than searching for neutral sources (several secular sources are warning about relying on books written by defectors, newer sources more often than older sources). Pro-JWs are those challenging his defector-based "facts", and challenging the systematic bias found in some of the JW-related articles. As a proposed pro-JW contributor, I shouldn't have supposed to remove a watchtower source, as I recently did, and not been disagreeing or criticising to proposals or behavior of other members of Jeffro's pro-JW-list. It is also other persons on his list who could be caracterized as regular users, users more accurate to scientifics methods and source critics than Jeffro, for not mentioning BlackCab, who have openly confirmed to be an ex-JW, and to have a need to "expose" JW. I'm sure nothing disturbing and irrevertable would happen to the topic if Jeffro and BlackCab gets a time limited topic ban, together with AutTam, if that is his worries. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that you only edit JW articles. Nor did I provide any "definition of non-JW-editors", other than they would be editors who are not members of Jehovah's Witnesses. I absolutely did not suggest that "non-JW-editors" would or should make "heavily use of sources made of defector and critics of JWs". Nor have I added such sources to articles, because I don't possess any of those works (I have sometimes restored statements that might be classified that way by JW editors; most of my changes to articles relate to copyediting of existing material). Grrahnbahr, and anyone else, is welcome to indicate what "defector-based "facts"" I have supposedly added to articles.

Being a pro-JW editor doesn't automatically mean that such an editor is not working in good faith, nor does it mean anything so absolute as never "supposed to remove a watchtower source". And nor does it mean that all pro-JW editors always agree on everything.

BlackCab was implicitly included among the "2 regular non-JW editors", and his position as a former JW is not in dispute. In the context of this discussion, I'm not aware of any recent regular non-JW editors other than BlackCab and myself who might otherwise have been implied.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Several of the users on your list has chosen not to self identify their religious status (or political status), myself included. If not clearly identifying what you mean by pro-jw, you can't expect any support to a suggestion to protect yourself and BlackCab from a topic ban, as the classifications of non-jw-editors and jw-editors are nothing but a personal opinion (if pro-jw is indicating a member of the JWs, then BlackCab is more likely to be included within your definitions than any other of the users on your list (with one or two exeptions), as he has confirmed not officially to have left the building). Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Then just be glad AuthorityTam hasn't decided you're a former JW.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Just stop using your personal opinions on others. It is so easy. Just reject existence of prejudice and preconception to other editors. You have dirty hands as well. Not only AuthorityTam. Just stop using your personal opinions on others. It is so easy. --FaktneviM (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: former members, apostates, ex-JW, anti-JW, non-JW, pro-JW, JW editor, JW supportive, ... etc. All of these slang idioms were developed probably by Jeffro77 or BlackCab and are used frequently with aim to divide "editors of JWtopics" and achieve hostile and unpleasant ambience amongst Wikipedia editors.

• Even I don't like been described as whatever of those expressions. Any affiliation of editors is their own personal affair and should not be fabricatelly forced if there is no such open permit for that. Otherwise they express bad faith. Those all expressions are based on prejudice and cause preconception within editors. Neutral and not-pre-judging classificiation is one of best ways to achieve better ambience.

• Why all editors can not be simply "Wikipedia editors usually/or/just by the way editing JW-related topics" ?!

• --FaktneviM (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"slang idioms"?? None of the terms were 'developed' by me, and all have a fairly fundamental meaning based on the simple meaning of the words. The notable exception is that the term "apostate" is very much a term frequently used by JWs, and that term is given special meaning by JWs.

In a perfect world, it might be nice to just classify everyone only as "Wikipedia editors". The fact of the matter though is that editors' biases (particularly the core of this ANI: that AuthorityTam behaves a certain way toward editors he believes to be former JWs that is different to the way he behaves toward other editors) necessitates that the matter be raised.

Ambiguous circumlocutory aside, it would be quite simple (though there is no obligation) for the editors named or any other editor to state directly whether they do or do not identify as members of the group or whether they do or do not adhere to the beliefs of the group. As I have stated previously, "Membership of the religion is not in itself remarkable nor does it immediately indicate that an editor cannot edit objectively, except insofar as it is relevant to possible bias where the same editor also claims to be an impartial non-member."--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

former members, apostates, ex-JW, anti-JW, non-JW, pro-JW, JW editor, JW supportive, ... etc. All of these slang idioms were developed probably by Jeffro77 or BlackCab and are used frequently with a purpose to divide "editors of JWtopics" and with purpose to achieve hostile and unpleasant ambience amongst Wikipedia editors.

Even I don't like been described as whatever of those expressions. Any affiliation of editors is their own personal affair and should not be artificially forced if there is no open permit for that. Otherwise users which use those expressions assumes bad faith. Those all expressions are based on prejudice and cause preconception within editors. Neutral and not-pre-judging classification is one of best ways to achieve better ambience. Who originally started to use those divisive words and why? Possible reasons and consequences of using such words are written above.

Why all editors can not be simply "Wikipedia editors usually/or/just by the way editing JW-related topics" ?!

this is possible solution to avoid existence of prejudice and bias based on such prejudices. of course this should be implicate to every member of wikiproject jehovah's witnesses. non-members of wikiproject have to use this improved behavior as well if wants to edit JW-related topics even henceforward. --FaktneviM (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you repeating almost exactly what you stated above?

Because you are not listening at all. Just bring that improved behaviour on other editors to practice! Or have I repeat it for you again? --FaktneviM (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership of the JW WikiProject is optional and arbitrary, and not particularly relevant to the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership in the wikiproject in time when first ANI happened, and second one as well, is in fact more important information than any else. Only members of the project were active and involved in the issue "Jeffro77-AuthorityTam-BlackCab" when happened. Nobody Ent, JohnChrysostom, Quinn1, In ictu oculi, FaktneviM, Jorgath, Baseball Bugs, John Carter, OhioStandard, Mangoe, Dominus Vobisdu, Maunus, Dougweller, Saedon, Kansan, Nyttend, and Georgewilliamherbert are not members. Only few of them were ever editing something JW-related. Jeffro77, BlackCab, AuthorityTam, Grrahnbahr, Fazilfazil, Willietell, etc. are members and express certainly bias and taking sides. This was mentioned many times. --FaktneviM (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that I am the same person as Warlordjohncarter, having changed my user name at my RfAdmin. I am a member of the group, and have been for some time. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Hey guys, we're going in circles again!!
• Jeffro77 lied about me. I clearly stated many times that I am not member of Wikiproject JW, nor would be again. I was formerly member of the project, including completely Wikipedia (see my user page). Last year I was JWtopics completely indifferent! I started to edit there about 14 days ago when I realized what happened during time I was silent. I clearly stated that I am impartial in the matter. Since last year I gained deeper insight in many matters. Though I can only say that I am JW-sympathetic+knowledgeable, what is big difference to call me JW editor. From the start I am trying to serve as mediator, because I don't think that unbiased means always JW-viewpoint even though sometimes it is the case. JW editors could trust me and non-JW editors could at least admit that I was not involved with disputes in which I try to mediate. Hence, in fact I am impartial.
• As I read from Jeffro77' and In ictu oculi' latest comments, there is a consensus that interaction ban should include BlackCab as well. I asked Baseball Bugs' on his viewpoint in this matter. (because he is absolutely impartial and I want not taking any sides).
• I also said that nobody here is completely innocent. Everyone should learn what WP:Civil and WP:AGF really! means. Bad faith accusations are still frequent as I read terrible discussion in JW article talk page yesterday (Grrahnbahr and Jeffro). I suggest that all current members should not to have a right to poll here (oppose/support etc.), because is evident that Jeffro taking sides and JW editors taking the other sides. (not surprising, it is very common as I am knowledgeable well of the ambience amongst JWtopics editors). So no result can be achieved in any case.

--FaktneviM (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you're "a member of Wikiproject JW" ('membership' of any WikiProject is generally informal anyway); I said you've been a recent regular editor of JW-related articles. If you are not a JW, I might have mixed you up with Fazilfazil, and if that's the case, I apologise.

I don't recall a "terrible discussion" with Grrahnbahr, and I've actually found him to be one of the more reasonable JW editors to work with. This doesn't mean we will agree on everything, but I'm not aware of any issues about conduct between Grrahnbahr and me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon review, I see that FaktneviM is the editor from last year who avoided discussion of his conduct at ANI by claiming his 'right to vanish' after he was reported by User:Danjel. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Personal Attacks, Harrassing Behaviour, inappropriate warnings and inappropriate use of Twinkle by User:FaktneviM and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User:FaktneviM, used WP:RTV to avoid consequences, continues to harass (neither of the incidents were raised by me).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In the past, you've called me a "fanatic non-believer"[6], and said I'm "not so clever, as [you and another JW editor]", but "not fully stupid as well"[7]. You have also suggested in the past that you are a JW.[8][9][10] If you're not a JW, just what did you mean by linking the JW's translation of 2 Cor 6:14-18 and then saying that scripture meant "It does mean very close friendship [with non-JW editors such as myself] or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that"?[11]

You've previously claimed that my User page (which is and was composed almost entirely of User Boxes) is "preaching" and "propagandistic and hatred"[12] and "hatred and pride ... propaganda, spreading hatred thoughts and intolerance"[13] (my user page at the time is here[14]).

You've also previously stated (incorrectly) that AuthorityTam has lied about you.[15]

You seem to have suggested here[16] that you consider the term "JW editor" to be a "slang idiom"; in case there is any confusion, the term "JW editor" is intended to mean a Wikipedia editor who is a member of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given your past behaviour, I'm not sure it's appropriate for you to claim that you're an 'impartial mediator'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that AuthorityTam is aware of the kind of inappropriate remarks he makes, because when he thought he'd offended a JW editor (specifically, FaktneviM) for a very minor misunderstanding (which actually was not even AuthorityTam's fault), he provided an elaborate apology, stating "I am very sorry that my comments originally included the username of a certain editor. My insult was unintentional. I discern that the editor is not fluent at the English language, and it was thoughtless of me to use his username in a manner which has proven to be ambiguous. I should have thought more. My thoughtlessness added nothing to the discussion, and had the unintended consequence of seemingly unambiguous disruptive editing" (formatting from original).[17] If AuthorityTam applied this kind of contriteness when offending editors he considers to be former JWs, we would not be at ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not care about personal attack and POV civil pushing from Jeffro. He responded non-logically and he assumed bad faith. He didn't consider my last edit at all. It is said that I remember it is very common. ((If someone other read my contributions here on this ANI and whatever else from past few months, could see what I have in mind. I just want to help here. I am ready to go away from Wikipedia again after solving this ANI. In some JW talk discussions I simply suggested everything what I observed after reading many last year edits when I was not involved. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"POV civil pushing"?? You claimed that I lied about you. I didn't. I did not say you were a member of the JW WikiProject.

When you said that you "can only say that I am JW-sympathetic+knowledgeable, what is big difference to call me JW editor", then you either ceased being a member since last year, or you lied when you said you were a member, or you lied when you said you're not. In any case, I did not lie about you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if you could indicate what you consider to be the "terrible discussion" with Grrahnbahr.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This may be a side point, and a little off topic. But I think of all the editors mentioned, I am the only one who I personally have noticed publicly stating they they are one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't have a problem being referred to as a JW editor, but I am not everyone and others might. Willietell (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership of the religion is not in itself remarkable nor does it immediately indicate that an editor cannot edit objectively, except insofar as it is relevant to possible bias where the same editor also claims to be an impartial non-member. I have already provided links where FaktneviM said he was a member. I was going from memory for the other 2, and if I confused them with other editors, I apologise. In any case, they hold pro-JW positions in discussions, which was the main point of the context of my comment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• [I had no longer internet connection]. [answer on Jeffro77's original question to membership] Well. There is no strict definition of being "member of Jehovah's Witnesses". Someone could consider to be a member when is closely involved with Witnesses. Someone could consider to be a member when has Bible study with Witnesses. Someone could consider to be a member when he/she is Unbabtized publisher. Someone could consider to be a member when he/she is Babtized publisher. Someone could consider to be a member when simply attenting their meetings without any other close affiliation. Because definition of "member" is not objective criterium, but subjectively based (aka feelings), I don't prefer to call myself "proJW editor" nor "JW editor", because both is prejudicaly defined. It depends only on encyclopaedic content and such division is not useful, becuase it is prejudice (by wrongly! so called "nonJW editors") ((=in fact "apostates" ... what is also prejudice) to expect that "members of whatever!" can't have balanced objective view in some matter. Moreover, it is personal privacy of each one and Wikipedia is not chat with person which do not exist. I can presume that Jeffro77 doesn't exist, because I never saw him. Such person is perhaps only imaginary and my messages are not read and I waste my time in Wikipedia what is also only imaganary. Due these circumstances I prefer to be "JW-sympatehetic+knowledgable" or even "JW-knowledgable" only. I didn't say that I am not Jehovah's witness. I only stated that I am not "JW editor" nor "member of WikiP JW". I said that I am impartial in case of this ANI, because I was inactive uninvolved editor in times when "AT vs BC,JF issue" happened.
• [I had no longer internet connection]. [answer on Jeffro77's original question to terrible discussion]. I had in mind discussion of Jeffro77 and Grrahnbahr, where Grrahnbahr accused Jeffro to being in a "Trinity" with BlackCab and John Chrysostom. I mentioned this, because it is a evidence of continuing tension amongst JW Project members. Due of that it seems logical to enforce my suggestion in 4th paragraph of first contrib in ===Comments=== starting with words "I also said that nobody" (4th paragraph). It is worth to mention that I agreed with observation of John Chrysostom, as well as all really impartial editors here. I think that this is evidence I am trying to be really impartial as well and no taking any sides in this ANI. See "This is simply wrong. Propose which Jorgath did and I supported...." for that contrib where I agree with John Chrysostom's observation. I also drew JCH minds from User_talk:JohnChrysostom#AuthorityTam and several other places, where John Chrysostom noted his position and thoughts on JW project.
• Summary again: Personally, I don't see any utility of Jeffro77' trying to discredit me on the basis of very old edits. His comments adds nothing to achieving solution (aka finally) and could be seen as a way to avoid his share on restrictions as well and personally intended comments like disruptive here. I still trying to assume AGF from all, but it is evident, as I said, in first contrib in ===Comments=== that members of wikiproject JW taking sides.
• --FaktneviM (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You claimed that I lied. I didn't. Semantics aside, your edits indicate that you're a 'proJW' editor whether or not you're a member of the religion (and you have indicated in the past that you are in the edits already indicated). I have also already indicated the manner in which such membership is relevant here, and that it does not automatically mean that an editor cannot be objective. Additionally, "nonJW" is not the same thing as "apostate" (neither the normal definition of the word nor the more narrow sense attributed by JWs). And I can assure you that I am not imaginary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The trinity-comment was ment partly as an practical joke (like mentioning USAs terrible record when it comes to human rights, followed by Jeffros hillarious comment), as JW are anti-trinitarists, but also with a kick to his side, as I think it is common interests between the three users, even though I won't suggest an openly cooperation. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The intention of Grrahnbarh's 'Trinity' comment was ambiguous, and seemed to mildly imply an accusation of collusion, but I certainly wouldn't have called it a "terrible discussion".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue

Despite the attempts by various pro-JW editors, the bias that may be held by such editors is only a factor here, although they are trying to make it appear as the issue. It is expected that debates will arise about sensitive topics, and that editors will have various biases, and in general, editors are able to debate these matters of article content without resorting to personal attacks. The issue here is that AuthorityTam behaves a certain way toward editors whom he believes to be former JWs that is different to the way he behaves toward other editors. Upon his return—which will likely be a few weeks after this ANI has disappeared—he should cease that behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not observed anything particularly offensive in ATam's edits/remarks/comments, certainly no more so than the edits/remarks/comments of the editors who have brought the ANI's in question. I don't think anything here rises to the level requiring any form of sanction and would advise all the editors involved to attempt to display a spirit of co-operation rather than give the appearance of hounding and harassing from article to article. It appears many times that certain editors revert edits, based not on the edit, but upon who the editor was who made the edit, giving little reason other than they don't feel it is necessary or that is provides too much information or is too detailed for the article or that it might be better suited in another similar article., and I feel that this leads to much of the frustration that brings us ultimately to this ANI. This kind of action by certain editors is a form of passive-aggressive harassment that is not constructive and is unnecessary and is more than somewhat uncivil behavior, and does little to further the project. It needs to cease. Willietell (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you are attempting to deflect from the actual issue. Many times, you have complained about omissions or deletions of article content, and you've raised many raised several RFCs objections at article Talk, for which the result has usually been that you have not received support from various independent editors. It is not necessary to attempt to distort the issue of AuthorityTam's conduct by complaining about the lack of agreement you have obtained for your edits. You also attempted to do this at the last ANI, which resulted in various editors noting that your behaviour has also been quite problematic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

While I did not know all the rules at first (and still don't entirely), and may have at first taken some somewhat regrettable actions, I don't think you can make a valid case that I have done anything recently that merits such a remark. Additionally, I personally have never raised an RfC, much less "several", though I have stated that I felt it might be necessary to do so due to a lack of a cooperative spirit from certain POV editors who work in tandem to attempt to control content on pages related to Jehovah's Witnesses in an attempt to push an anti-Jehovah's Witness POV. I am not the only editor who has noticed this tag-team editing in operation, as a numbers of editors have made reference to its existence. Also, Please do not try to make this ANI about me, as I have not made any negative personal reference about you or any other editor on any page in recent history other than at this ANI and its predecessor. Also, I have not tried to "deflect from the actual issue", but have addressed it directly by stating what you have ignored, which is " I have not observed anything particularly offensive in ATam's edits/remarks/comments, certainly no more so than the edits/remarks/comments of the editors who have brought the ANI's in question. I don't think anything here rises to the level requiring any form of sanction and would advise all the editors involved to attempt to display a spirit of co-operation rather than give the appearance of hounding and harassing from article to article. " . The issue has therefore been directly addressed with a pointed comment. Willietell (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You have made many claims about "POV spin" about JW-related articles, and none gained support from the several editors who responded. Your further claims about editors 'working in tandem' are a continuation of your own improper conduct; no doubt you would object if someone suggested that you were working in 'tandem' with other pro-JW editors, just as could be claimed about other pro-JW editors who have endorsed such a claim (Grrahnbahr previously made an accusation of collusion but later struck it out when it was shown to be false). You have not provided any evidence for your claim that I am 'pushing an anti-Jehovah's Witness POV', and any attempt to do so would require that you ignore where I have also removed negative statements about the religion. Your opinion that you haven't observed anything improper in AuthorityTam's behaviour is countered by the comments of several editors who have; this includes comments by other pro-JW editors who have indicated that AuthorityTam has often unnecessarily baited BlackCab with entirely irrelevant snide remarks about his previous username.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, you have claimed that you have not made negative comments about me outside of the ANI, but you just falsely claimed in an edit summary that I am 'hounding' you, for allegedly "ridiculous, baseless and nonsensical reasons".[18] The stated reason for reverting your edit was that the edit was redundant.[19] Specifically, the sentence in question previously read, "Members are expected to participate regularly in evangelizing work...", and you inserted (after to), "be active ministers and". The manner in which JWs consider themselves to be "active ministers" is that they "participate regularly in evangelizing work"; your addition was therefore plainly redundant. I would not be terribly surprised if your edit was made with the knowledge that it was redundant and would therefore be reverted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Again you take half of what I say and ignore the other, here again is my statement " I have not observed anything particularly offensive in ATam's edits/remarks/comments, certainly no more so than the edits/remarks/comments of the editors who have brought the ANI's in question. I don't think anything here rises to the level requiring any form of sanction and would advise all the editors involved to attempt to display a spirit of co-operation rather than give the appearance of hounding and harassing from article to article. " try to refer to it in it's entirety. As far as the edit you reverted AGAIN, it is not redundant, and your continued reverting of my edit's from page to page demonstrates a pattern of hounding. It is ridiculous for you to continue to demonstrate this pattern, the edit was not redundant, therefore the revert was baseless and the idea that the edit is redundant is nonsense and demonstrates either a passive-aggressive attempt at harassment or a complete lack of understanding of the English language by someone who make use of it as their mother tongue. Additionally a comment is not made in a negative way when its attempt is to correct inappropriate actions, such as following me from page to page reverting good faith edits based on the editor and not the content. [20][21][22]. Additionally, this is somewhat out of scope here, but JHVH is the Latinized form of the transliteration of the Tetragrammaton that is considered most familiar to the general populace, thus its more common usage. Its usage is also more consistent with other familiar names translated in the bible such as Jesus, Jeremiah, Jehoshaphat and many others who would have entirely unrecognizable names if the transliteration to YHWH was made with consistency throughout the Hebrew scriptures...Just FYI...in case you really didn't know Willietell (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

1) There was no reason for me to state the whole passage in its entirety (nor for you to repeat the whole thing again), because your entire comment was readily visible immediately above my comment.

2) I have quite clearly explained the specific manner in which your edit that I reverted was most certainly redundant, invalidating your tendentious claim that the edit was made 'based on the editor'. I have not 'followed you from page to page', I review edits to the pages that are on my Watch List. Willietell will be conveniently silent here about User:Amusingusername's edits to Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline that I reverted around the same time.[23][24].

3) Your last comment is indeed entirely out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your efforts to rein in vandalism and obvious inflammatory POV pushing, as was the case with the two diffs you supply, are commendable and I applaud your efforts in this regard. That aside, please do not accuse me of being tendentious, as this is simply uncivil [25] and please do not continue to revert my properly sourced edits, deleting the cited source as well as you have done here [26] and here [27] as this could be viewed as tendentious editing itself [28]. All I ask of the editor is a for there to be a spirit of cooperation for the betterment of the project. With reasonableness, disagreements can be worked out. However, when an editor tries, not to discuss content, but to dictate it, problems arise. Please attempt in the future to be more cooperative. I'm sure that together, we can make this project a success. Willietell (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

More disruption involving MMA

User:Agent00f

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

---

Firstly Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability having derailed the last attempt to reach a proposal for an RfC by filibustering in the process driving off one editor he is now using it as his own persoal soap box and forum. See this edit. Mtking ^(edits) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For some background, this is a topic which has seen failure after failure in all previous attempts to be resolved for many months. The blindingly obvious common denominator in every single case are 3 editors: Mtking, TreyGeek, and Hasteur. Together they collude and dominate the discussion to the exclusion of actual contributors/users of the pages in question, then intimidate anyone who dares oppose or even question their methodology. This bred the animosity and untenable situation we find ourselves today: even though there are tens of thousands of users, hundreds of page contributors (dozens of which are were active in the discussion before), and many if not most have left in sheer disgust. None outside of their in-group have any trust or faith in them, and their string of failures are a stain on wikipedia's image. Simply observe Mtking's behavior below toward yet another user they've managed to provoke.

As to the issue at hand, I am not at all blocking their effort to repeat history, but instead only wish to introduce an alternative approach which is open to other participants. They can certainly choose not to participate, and we can move this new effort to another page if need be (several options exist). They of course see this as a threat to their dominion and engage in an active campaign to stop anyone who challenge their monopoly on power. If I just move the call for participation elsewhere, they'll simply retaliate elsewhere, so there's no safe harbor where another approach can at least be attempted. I strongly believe an effort which is not their direct control has at least a moderate chance of success, and the powers at be should consider all the other page contributors' wishes to resolve the matter when all previous attempt with our common denominators have failed miserably. Agent00f (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I request that you strike your assertion regarding the collusion and assertion regarding the common denominator. That is an assumption of bad faith on the behalf of editors in good standing with wikipedia whom have been attempting to apply the policy and standards as they exisist today. Long blocks of soapboxing and proposals which are directly contrary to the established policies are not collaberative, but disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no reason to strike assertions that are objectively true and supported by empirical evidence. As just one example, in the last failed AN[I] attempt against me, after a round of intimidation Hasteur contacted the select group to provide (obviously biased) supporting statements. Not a single other participant on the talk page was contacted despite his claim of "neutrality". This is recorded in wiki for posterity. Singling out those who are not as well coordinated as them seems to be their modus operandi, as is clearly evident right here.

Also note that Hasteur continues to slam others for "assuming bad faith", when no assumption is necessary given copious empirical evidence. As further evidence of the tight knit nature of this clique, observe that TreyGeek immediately re-reverted when I tried to put back the comments that Mtking blatantly erased from the talk page. This is a consistent and repeated rule rather than the exception. Hasteur doesn't deny that my asserts are true, only feigning righteous indignation and wishing to strike them from the record regardless (and this is far from the first time). Again consistent with the assertion that they expect a monopoly on power. Agent00f (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now gone over the WP:3RR line at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, I have filed a report at WP:3RR/N.Mtking ^(edits) 07:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this rule exists and I've reverted last change. This action in itself is forum-shopping FORUMSHOP, while a link was provide, they're clearly the same issue and no link was provide back here even though it was created later. Notable given edit warring is more straightforward offense (quick block action).

As more evidence of the persistent lack of ethics noted on this page, Mtking's now trying to cover his/her deletion tactics by posting a specious AN, then offering to withdraw it only if they agree to the wholesale deletion.

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

User:Mtking and User:Hasteur

Many obvious violations by Mtking:

• The "edit war" AN just above was a consequence of blatant whole revertion/deletion (including unrelated comments) in violation of WP:TALKO editing rules. By sharing 3 reverts between 2 editors who work closely together (simply look at history for evidence), they can successfully flaunted 3RR, leaving the status of any new material in doubt and successful blocking contributions of any one person they choose. General intimidation.

• The collusion between Mtking, Hasteur, and Treygeek to single out, harass, and drive off (esp new) users who do not wish them to dominate the discussion constitutes blatant BITE on all their parts. Using intimidation strategies in turn against people less versed in the long list of rules. This has apparently gone on for months.

• Just one specific case out of many by Hasteur is these "final warning" threats. Clear case of WP:Harassment. When they're brought to attention of broader community, he/she further ratchets up the threat level to force others to immediately apologize "or else". This is recorded at the MMA talk page. This resulted in WP:CANVASING, a very embarrassing ANI on their part, but this obviously continues unabated.

• Flooding of my user talk page by the lot above + Newmanoconnor (who just joined their gang a week ago), another case of #User_space_harassment. They never reply with any specifics when asked for evidence of violation. Seems the strategy is to flood for stuff they can't get away with at AN, and forums shop on anything borderline.

• Blatant ADMINSHOP given that multiple admins have already been involved in this general situation (including previous ANI against me which was closed with no action despite blatant WP:CANVASSING by User:Hasteur) and the common denominator for months in all these problems remains Mtking, Hasteur, and Treygeek.

• This whole AN is done in bad faith, no assumption necessary. The talk page in question has long devolved into the state it's in, and my edit was only to get normative processes back into order by analyzing previous failures and trying to avoid them in the future. Even the former admin was soapboxing. Nothing but desperate last ditch attempt at ADMINSHOP.
• One of the comments on the page above was "closed" completely at odds with closure rules, pretending to be the admin of the place despite having no authoritative power.

• In another blatant violation of ADMIN SHOPPING elsewhere, all 3 have conducted multiple aggressive campaigns of AfD's on entire sets of MMA pages even during collaboration with page's contributors, often voting in concord between themselves. Simply look at their histories, it's nothing but trying to trash MMA related pages and hunt down MMA contributors. They're not always successful, but doesn't stop the "try try again" approach. Even minor successes can break a set of page's cohesion, which is why they keep trying instead of waiting for any kind of resolution. This kind of SHOPPING is clearly an asymmetric "terrorism" against a whole wiki community since it costs them nothing while hugely disrupting others.

Agent00f (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f named me in this subsection and did not notify me. Again, we have the same demonstration of lack of good faith. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur is already subscribed to this, aka already knows this AN exists. Note timestamp on his/her direct reply to me above. BTW, I'm also not going to spam TreyGeek's talk since he also knows this exist. Personally I think spamming someone's page with AN notices when they already know is close to User space harassment. Agent00f (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This list has sat here uncontested for many days. It can only be concluded that any admins who've seen it don't disagree with its claims, yet choose to do nothing about MtKing and Hasteur's behavior regardless. I was blocked by one admin for apparently posting too many claims (ie TLDR: ban, so it's not surprising he/she's yet to reply to any request to explain this odd decision), but no one's addressed these violations above. It's notable that even while this AN section is ongoing, the harassment (Newmanoconnor specifically) on my talk page continues. Agent00f (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of comments does not mean your accusations are uncontested or that anyone agrees with them. You have provided no evidence to back your accusations against any of these editors and your attempt on this page to manufacture consensus from a lack of comments makes it look like you, not they, are the problem. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is linked above where convenient, often by Mtking himself. Some are simply self-explanatory like the aggregate history of two users. The talk page where some of it resides is a mess, but note that none of the many users from there familiar with the intimate details deny any of this occurred. In every case below where someone asked for specifics, I've provided it to their satisfaction. Please be specific about your own personal curiosities.

As for consensus, I've simply listed the facts of the case, and it's up to others (not me) to use their own reasoning facilities. Note that Treygeek below has vetted the list for factual accuracy and it's been properly amended. Agent00f (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

So far you have a list, but no differences that back it up. You opinion is not evidence. Edward321 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you describe what constitutes evidence for you? Or opinion for that matter? For example, is Mtking's own link to the edit that he wholesale deleted evidence or opinion? Agent00f (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Portillo

Secondly Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to attack other editors, see this, this and this. Mtking ^(edits) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is simply more WP:Harassment by MtKing. Targets pages someone's involved with for deletion (since no sanctions for excessive AfDs, even failed ones), and when they lash back, tries to drive them out. Just look at Mtking's history, it's purely destructive, and it's daily routine. Agent00f (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The behavior of these editors has been incredibly disruptive and confusing. Interesting how UFC articles were doing perfectly fine for years, enjoyed by thousands of visitors. Until someone suddenly noticed that UFC events are against Wikipedia policy. Took a while to figure that out. Portillo (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is not now, nor has ever been, a defense to violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines consisting of "It's been up for years and no one noticed before now that they were in violation." Quite aside from that standards change, and that handwaving was done in the cowboy days that don't pass muster now, there is no statute of limitations here.

  That being said, those links were unacceptable personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, pure and simple, and it is curious that someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have might not understand that. Strange though it might appear to some that an editor could think so without some unwholesome bias, it is quite possible to believe that a particular type of article fails to pass notability muster (and, indeed, continue to hold it) without having a "personal agenda" or being on a "witch hunt." Ravenswing 04:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the perfectly coherent defense is the 5th and last pillar of wiki: it is not a bureaucracy. This means that while following rules are convenient for daily operations, rules are not the defining characteristic. The MMA event articles are not some flash by night operation. They've used and appreciated by countless users. They also exist as a coherent and cohesive where it's worth as a whole is significantly diminished with deletion of each election. Without a consistent solution in hand, it's simply reckless (not bold) to allow individual hit-and-run AfDs to ruin a useful resource. Help the topic's long term contributors make it right, instead of capitulating to destructive editor with no stake in the outcome. I hope that someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have could understand this. Agent00f (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Funny that, but a consistent solution is at hand: the omnibus yearly articles. (It's not that employing them is an "inconsistent" solution, of course; it's that you don't like them.) That being said, I note that you are perfectly willing to cite rules and policies when they suit your purpose to do so, and this strikes me as another area where you argue policy when you believe it favors your stance, and that policy should be ignored when you believe it doesn't. Moreover, what I note you do not attempt to rebut are your unacceptable personal attacks ... unless you believe that falls under IAR as well.

  That being said, there's a .sig I use on VBulletin-based boards which applies: "It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that I don't agree with your position." Ravenswing 02:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Their design is incoherent, user unfriendly, and aesthetically terrible. I've gone over the details at length on the omnibus, but I see that you've managed to understand the specifics even without knowing anything about the subject. More importantly, because of this, nobody in the actual audience for the rules and pages likes them in any way. You can of course "disagree", but unfortunately factual reality isn't very considerate about this type of opinion. Agent00f (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• BTW, you seem to be accusing me of hypocrisy. Please cite some evidence of this, or at least let me now if asking for citation is against wiki policy since these types of requests never seem to get fulfilled. If it's simply your "opinion", not meant to reflect factual reality, please note that in the statement to avoid confusion, thanks. Also, the only reason the sections above were written is because it's unfortunate reality that that idiotic AN's often get results. Not my rule, but we're in a place where it happens nonetheless. Agent00f (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Prayer for relief

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

---

As an editor who has been around and around the bush with the various SPAs that show up, disrupt all forward momentum on developing a workable solution to the MMA article space and then vanish in the night to leave the crew of regulars to do their best to demonstrate good faith by addressing the points raised by the SPAs, I with to enter a plea for relief. I request an uninvolved administrator (or multiple administrators) to start calling out (and sanctioning) the violations of community policy on all participants in the debate (yes, I open myself up to the calling out). The only way forward is to demonstrate to the externally canvassed (as has been demonstrated multiple times) editors that violations of community policy and standards will no longer be tolerated in the space. Hasteur (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The regulars who don't support this small clique's monopoly over the agenda have long left in disgust. Admin involvement to sanction any remaining dissent from their agenda will only further antagonize a poisonous situation. In the broader picture, it's the MMA page contributors who have to live with the consequences of the group's polarizing choices. They have little interest in the actual subject as evidenced by their terrible design for "omnibus pages" (which they stealth-implemented to the protestations of everyone else), and this means the rest of us will be saddled with the a burden they have no real stake in. This is not only demotivating to the masses but breeds contempt and grounds for future conflict, which is exactly we are trying to avoid. My alternative proposal is simply that those from the sporting community get a chance to create a plan consistent with both wiki rules and also the stakeholders in this case. We can do this among ourselves without issue if only those who consider themselves an executive elite stop actively sabotaging any efforts they can't directly control and manipulate. For a renewed effort to settle this matter, I've spend considerable time developing a process which would prevent take-overs by single parties in decision-making in the hopes that everyone gets a voice. This is a obviously a threat to them, and why they're trying to block me in a panic.

As to the technical specifics of the matter, most of us want brightline tests for MMA notability, and some level of protection for coherent sets of well formatted/presented and cleanly linked event pages as long as they can fit a minimal template standard. The first issue is obvious. A brightline test would provide clear precedence of what's acceptable. Recall this is the same group that's been actively AfD'ing subject pages at random, even during the "collaborative" process demonstrating bad faith, to gain leverage. A consistent test would sap the power of this tool in the future, so it's against their interests and not an option they'd consider at all. On the second issue, the MMA wiki community has for years used a consistent and well-established format to chain together cohesive sets of events whose value in sum are greater than their parts. Breaking these chains inflict damage well beyond the individual entries and thus why they're the choice of target for this AfD group to gain leverage. We're complete open to more stringent requirements (ie template) to establish brightline tests, but not unexpectedly this minority also won't table this.

What's been even more frustrating is that these features were presented as appendages to the clique's existing plan (in something of 80-20 split in their favor), and they willfull ignored any mention it. Such is the nature of their attitude of complete domination. Rather than let anyone else present their ideas, this small group has intentionally driven off collaborators. No matter how you look at it, the common denominator of the string of previous failures is still them. Agent00f (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, can you link the specific edit where you made a proposal for possible guidelines on the notability of MMA events? I'm sorry, I haven't seen it. I've seen walls of text, much like this one, that don't seem to go anywhere, in my opinion. It is difficult to comment or discuss a proposal that I haven't seen clearly. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Simply search for "I took a look at the legalistic situation a bit more in depth" on the omnibus page. Note that it's bulleted to be easy to see and read. It was of course ignored by the clique.

More importantly, I believe the approach that you and Mtking took when writing your proposal is already poisoned. The broader community was never consulted, so they have zero incentive to buy in except to capitulate to the constant intimidation and harassment. This is why I proposed a new start with the MMA base onboard from the start. The can choose your plan, or they can choose something else, but they're not forced either way, esp by admin pressure. If it needs to be revised to meet wiki boundaries, so be it, that's their responsibility. It's not your right to take that away from everyone else.

I've started writing this when Mtking immediately saw it as a threat and started this AN. My first post in a line to be posted over time was wholesale deleted. You know what got deleted given you were part of the 3RR. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped you would provide an actual link so we could be sure that we are discussing the same thing. I am going to assume you are referring to this edit. If this assumption is correct, the reason I didn't respond is that I didn't understand it. I cannot tell what you want WP:MMAEVENT to read or how it is related to existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, if at all. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about it? Users want something with a given structure. The rules should be written to accommodate this, not the other way around. Maybe it's due to your background, but these are not physically or mathematically defined impermeable constructs to assemble towards an end. They're guidelines which can be simply created out of thin air as long as they're reasonably consistent to the general spirit of wiki. If you don't feel MMAEVENT can be stretched to accomodate, then it doesn't even need to enter into this. Agent00f (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This seem like blatant ADMIN SHOPPING, esp when factoring in "multiple administrators". Multiple admins have already been involved in this situation (including previous ANI against me which was closed with no action despite blatant CANVASING by Hasteur) and common denominator in all these problems remains the 3 named above. Also, calling out "SPA's" with every breath, who are often the only people left to oppose them, is directly in violation of BITING. Rotating between them to throw the rulebook at newbies to intimidate them also seems like BITEing. Agent00f (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE says that if you see a SPA acting like a SPA you should call them a SPA. Tagging them as SPAs only allows other editors who aren't as quick on the uptake to see if the actions do warrant further response. Please strike your assertions of canvassing. No action was taken during the last ANI where you believe I canvassed therefore you should WP:DROP the claim. Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, WP:BITEing with rulebook. Below are the CANVASING links. These are the only people to comment against me on the ANI directly after. These are the named people (Newmanoconnor is newest member and thus not part of the "common denominator", but he's already been WP:Harrassing me in turn with Hasteur right I joined), plus the admin who strongly endorses MtKing + TreyGeek plan (his own words). They are a solid votingblock. The ANI didn't go anywhere, esp after posting these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mtking#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newmanoconnor#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TreyGeek#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown#FYI:_Agent00f

I have no intention of retracting a 100% factual statement. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "SPA"s, one quick look through all these user's histories clearly indicate that all 3 of them basically try to delete or otherwise disrupt MMA articles for a living. Includes many trips to AN's and votingblock at AfD's. Fortunately there's no wiki rule WP:HYPOCRISY or we wouldn't all be entertained by this ridiculous forum shopping right now. Agent00f (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I again ask you to strike the above mentioned assertion. I am not a Single Purpose account. I do not edit exclusively MMA based topics. My edit history very clearly shows a focus on Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) based articles, but no singular purpose in any editing. You on the other hand have exclusively edited the talk page for WP:MMANOT, your talk page, and this noticeboard. Your actions are a textbook definition of a single purpose account. Hasteur (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the list of the last 500 edits, the vast majority involves destructive tendencies against MMA material/users. Also, you don't "edit exclusively MMA based topics" since you don't edit anything in them at all. Agent00f (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f - statements that people are trying to delete articles "for a living" (implying paid editing) or calling edits "terrorism" are very serious personal attacks and if continued would warrant admin action under WP:NPA. They do not help to reach resolutions of the dispute.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"for a living" is a figure of speech. If you look through history, the vast majority of their actions are destruction against MMA material. Asymmetric "terrorism" is much more literal. The idea of terrorism is low-cost strikes (which AfD's are, they cost nothing) against higher value targets (which articles in a coherent set are, take out one and the sum suffers). It is also a tool of threat/fear. Note that these AfD's are being fired even during the "consensus" process, implying that they will stop so long as we agree to their plan. This is not unlike bringing guns to arms reduction talks and randomly shooting at people until the other side capitulates. It doesn't always have to hit, but occasionally hitting helps. We literally have no recourse against this other than capitulating. The clique has no material to AfD, so it is by definition asymmetric. These are direct factual statements and abstract reasoning and thus need no retraction. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Facts of the case

In good faith I'll have to hold off on posting any "soapboxing" on the MMA talk page until this is resolved. So instead of working further on rules for proposals and proposals, I'll write some background to the case, valuable to any decision. Good decisions are based on factual knowledge.

These are mostly for any intervening admin (which I think should intervene). They are empirical observations, assuming good faith in all cases (and no value judgments to minimize bias). They are my direct experience after 1 week (and reading the history):

1. The current MMA omnibus "design" is the product of Mtking and Treygeek. An admin verified this. Mtking knows nothing about the subject, and Treygeek claims to but he's never really demonstrated it anywhere other than improving an event page with some generic prose. He also claimed this took him a significant investment over a whole week, so I guess he works slow.

2. The design they've come up with is both visual atrocious (mismatched sidebars, etc) and obscenely long (already hard to navigate even though only 1/2 complete). Not to mention completely irrational for a non-seasonal sport (which is not sorted by calendar year), and potentially inconsistent in presentation between different organization. This can only be because someone's incompetent or willfully incompetent. We are told to assume good faith, so logically that leaves the former, and it would make sense given 1. Regardless, this doesn't bode well for MMA on wiki in the long term. Because this was already stealth-implemented for one sporting org (the biggest), it's now inconsistent with everything else. This means the work falls on "the regulars" to do the rest of work implementing something they strongly dislike (a fact noted again and again). Rule-enforcing bad design on a volunteer community drives away both contributors and readers, ruins morale, and lowers the quality of everything. This is simply a fact of human nature.

3. Furthermore, despite the process going on for months, it's still incomplete and not ready for RfC. This work is something a competent person can figure out in a weekend, maybe two if they didn't have much wiki domain knowledge. Their excuse is that MMA fans have been obstructing them, but that makes no sense since work done in your own time can be completed regardless of what others do. Their plan eventually came to incorporate some suggested improvements from others, but still none of those contributors are supporting it now.

4. The editing histories of these two + Hasteur (which constitutes their votingblock on anything mma related) shows that they're all ardent deletionists. The histories for Mtking and Hasteur for many months is almost exclusively hunting down mma pages to AfD, plus the ensuing drama. This doesn't suggest they enjoy the sport to say the least. On the other, the Agent00f is clearly thus far mostly an SPA except some kinect material previously. The follow is not citable given privacy concerns so it's "trust me", but it's factually basic: I'm a sometimes MMA fan, and joined the fray because I saw some weirdness in the pages, and found what was going on. It seemed fundamentally unethical at the time so I wrote my two cents, but got trolled in by the clear BS and "warnings" I got in reply. I also know I'm somewhat motivated by anger that gradually built over the week over this as these facts surfaced. Now I would feel I would betray my own sense of ethics if I let this lie. This is simply what happened based on my own recollection of feelings.

5. Let's be honest, we all know that Wiki's rules can be game-theoried by a clique over less organized individuals. From votingblocks to avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest, or round-robin around 3RR (noted in section above), there are many moral hazards here that can encourage a small cohesive group to work together against singular targets. Their histories suggest they stick together on the topic, and never go against anyone in the group. I suppose assuming good faith that can be attributed to sheer coincidence. However game theory is math, and not an assumption.

6. One of Hasteur and Mtking's most notable attributes is unsubstantial replies. If you look at their histories, they rarely post more than a couple lines, often littered with WP: tags instead of actual english. I've found better contributors think moderately deep thoughts, that's just a fact. This is strange given that one of their favorite excuses for deletionism is unsubstantial content, or no prose. This is at least hypocritical as a matter of pure logic. Note this does not apply to Treygeek.

7. Speaking of excuses for AfD, another is lack of sources. But that's also ironic because these two often make frivolous accusations which they don't substantiate, which leads to:

8. Another attributes of all 3 is selective replies. There's apparently no Wiki rule for ignoring people, so they usually just ignore any comment or reply where there's no trite WP tag to counterpoint. This tends to frustrate those who are the exact opposite in substantive replies, so when those call them out, they flaunt WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVILITY. This is very evident in the whole MMA omnibus thread and it's clearly gaming the system as matter of game theory.

9. To be fair, one of Agent00f's attributes is being too verbose, and centering everything on reasoning/logic instead of human feelings. Based on personal observation, it's a character flaw.

10. Mtking and Hasteur often accuse others first of things they're guilty themselves for. This can be seen by the harassment on my talk page and the AN itself. In the abstract this is a psychological strategy but let's assume good faith so they just do it by accident. The effect it has is still real, though, like this AN. Point 8 above is a good example, too. They're simply very proactive about striking out first at everyone else as an empirical observation.

Agent00f (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Fact - most of the above "facts" are purely opinion. But hey, why cloud the issue with actual facts supported by evidence? Ravensfire (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not they clearly are not. An "observation" is just that: something you see clearly, like a bottle on table. A bottle on a table is not a matter of opinion. If you need something cited, please point to it specifically and I will oblige. But as a matter of basic fairness you also must oblige to acknowledge in reply that it's observable fact. I didn't cite everything as a time consideration, because the MMA talk page is a mess of a revision history. Please do not think I don't have a very technical background where discerning the difference is critical. Agent00f (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet clearly, they are just your opinion about the matter. BTW - I totally love how you denigrate editors by labeling them. Hmm, how about calling you and those who support you rapid MMA fanboys? So we can have the AFD deletionists vs the fanboys. Hmm, suddenly labels aren't that attractive, are they? Ah, but you'll say, they are AFD deletionists! It's a fact (in my opinion...)! Ah, but others can point out, you are just an MMA fanboy! It's a fact (in their opinion)! And all of the vitriol, hostility and gamemanship you show on the MMA talk page does nothing to help the matter. Except, of course, chase several admins away that were trying to help. What's odd is you've not made a single edit to an MMA article. You do realize that the ultimate way to pull something out of the omnibus is to put the details that would show to anyone that it deserves it's own article. Good grief - UFC 145 probably could be split off without too much work, but that isn't being done. Think about it ... Ravensfire (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I am not bother if someone calls another a rabid MMA fanboy if they provide a proper definition, just like a bottle on a table is predicated on a definition of "on". Both are observable. Please provide a definition for you statement I'll be happy to accept the label since it changes nothing but the letters. Observable facts are largely linguistically context-free.
2. Also, the admin left of his own free volition. This is a fact as evidenced by his own statement.
3. Since you seem to expect substance from me, it's only fair you provide similar substance in reply. Please substantiate your claims clear as I've done mine.
4. Later I'm working on a set of interpretations based on external reasoning (ie knowledge from outside instead of simple observations) from these facts. This should make the difference abundantly clear. Note in the vernacular, "opinions" is not well defined, so please be much more specific so that we're on the same page.
5. Finally, a slight correction: these are not just facts, but also math as explained within the writing. For example, hypocrisy as formally defined is axiomatic, and easy to deduct. If you have disputes with any of the math, please point out which and we can either go through a thought experiment or the formally deduction. Agent00f (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For #1, can you link to an edit where I claimed to spend a week "full-time" working on UFC 140? If I did make such a claim it was in error, however, I doubt I said that. I spent a week researching the event so that I could write the prose and have it sourced as well as I could. If that is bad, I apologize, I was doing the best I could with the time I had available to me. I would love to see you bring an MMA event article up to the same standards or to a higher standard.

• I believe you claimed that you did this during an no-work week, and you wouldn't be able to resume this kind of commitment afterward, which would imply it was a sizable investment. I commend your commitment. Since we seem to more or less agree on the basics, I'll just reword it. If you wish to specify X hours out of 40 let me know, but I don't think that's necessary.

For #2, the original version of the article lacked the sidebars and raw event results. These other features were added afterwards in order to attempt to work with others interested in the MMA article space. For you to blame the current format of the article exclusively on me and/or Mtking is misplaced blame.

• This plan was specified by Dennis the admin as the result of you and Mtking's work. However, given that none of the those others you speak of want anything to do with it anymore, I think calling it you and Mtking's plan is fairly accurate. I will however amend 3 because not all elements of the design are yours.

For #3... you may not have intended it to be. However, it appears to be a personal attack against any and everyone who has participated in the discussions at WT:MMANOT because you are claiming we are incompetent since the discussion has lasted as long as it has.... thanks.

• This is a bad interpretation of a plain fact. The incompetence is displayed in a plan that no one liked. Had competent work been done in the first place, then the process wouldn't have taken months because people wouldn't have objected so severely. However I sympathize with your distaste for bureaucracy. I'm wasting time here much better spent coming up with proposals a superior plan which everyone except you 3 would like. In fact you and Mtking gaming of the system (wholesale deletion and then 3rr, remember that?) is blocking proposals from being tabled. Bureaucracy often means incompetence blocking ideas that aren't institutional. Such is life.

For #7 "they often make frivolous accusations"[citation needed] (particularly for the "frivolous accusations" I have made).

• It probably wasn't unambiguous that 7 follows from 6, where you are not named. I've clarified it. I hope this doesn't imply that you've internalized the clique. ;) If you want citations for them, simply read the flood of their spam/harassment on my talk page. There is of course much more in the talk page (WP:WARNINGS at every turn), and you should be aware of it from your history on this case.

For #8 I historically don't respond to comments, questions, etc that I do not understand. Also, I try not to immediately respond to talk pages (though I am not always successful) and in discussion that have rapid comments from multiple people it can be easy to miss something to respond to.

• I don't know what you're talking about, please clarify. This is one example of a good reply to a confusing comment instead of ignoring it.

For #10 I stand by the vast majority of my edits and actions on Wikipedia. If administrators and/or the larger Wikipedia community feels that I have been in error I fully expect them to let me know up to and including talk page warnings, blocks of editing privileges and/or topic bans.

• I apologize I didn't exclude you from this point, that was clearly an error and I've fixed it. You're actually a quite honest person and don't indulge in this like your colleagues.

For the points that I did not address, I don't understand why you bring them up aside from possibly blowing off steam. I had hoped that both in the original WT:MMANOT discussions and my attempts to renew the discussion that everyone could try to work together. Unfortunately, it seems those efforts are failing and I'm not sure why aside from the possibility that my involvement inherently negatively polarizes the situation. Now I must run, UFC on Fox is about to start. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• The facts listed here are a large part of the reason why people are very reluctant to work with the 3 amigos, and frankly despise them even if they're not allowed to express it. I've noted above that background facts are important to making decision, like for example this AN. That's why they're placed as a primer for the admin who might not be familiar with the situation otherwise.

Replied Agent00f (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Interpretations of the Situation

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

---

This is based on my own value judgement and external logic (ie uses things not inherent in the observation). It's separated from the above because it is not 100% provably true.

1. It seems what happened is that when the group above was warring against mma pages, a few mma fans took matters into their own hands. This had a unfortunate polarizing effect on wiki administration whereby the latter became the "bad guys" as an aggregate, and the former by extension and axiomatic symmetry the good guys. This gave the former considerable more leeway when gaming the system. There is extensive psych research for this if citation is necessary.

2. Allowing a small disinterested clique to systematically ruin a whole functional community on wiki is a stain on the wiki reputation, even if it's by accident. By doing nothing to dissuade (ie allowing) gaming of the system, it paints a picture that the org is more about the letter of the law than the spirit. It defines the site as a bureaucratic nightmare instead of good judgement. This is fundamentally discouraging to smart and creative contributors which is what any site needs.

3. As a matter of good judgement, there are two issues to consider here: the good of the few against the many, and legal consistency. The former is obvious, but the later often encourages enforcing the letter of the law if only to minimize exceptions. However, in that case we also have to consider that allowing the precedent that a few people can game the site rules for months without punishment.

4. This seems a clear case where a few (again, perhaps only by circumstance) took over the reigns of power by abusing the common rules. In a way it's the wort kind of takeover since they've gotten to make substantial decisions even though they have no stake in the longer term outcome. This is very akin to predatory takeover or private equity business in equivalent function, which are very well documented cases. In all these circumstances, demoralization at the lower ranks and moral hazards abound. Given this has already happened, the question is how to resolve it: silence the whistle-blowers, turn a blind eye, solve the problem by closing loopholes, or solve the problem by sanctioning people've taken advantage of them (even if they only happen upon it). The decision is an easy one to make, and it's certainly not mine to make, but the necessary info to do it was presented.

Agent00f (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Call for sanctions

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

---

Administrators Surely this 3 ring circus has gone on long enough. The thread a few days ago coupled with these 2 threads should illuminate beyond any shadow of a doubt the disruptive actions of Agent00f who will filibuster, claim bureaucratic abuse, claim anything in the book just to slow down the process of building consensus regarding the MMA articles.

I do acknowledge that my own actions in response to Agent00f have been less than exemplary, however I challenge you to find any other editor who has dealt with the same intensity and duration of abuse of community guidelines as we (MtKing, TreyGeek, and myself) have and still maintain the same level of composure.

I call for an indefinite block on Agent00f on grounds of deliberate disruption, lack of Assuming Good Faith, Personal Attacks, and deliberate obfuscation after being warned repeatedly being asked to strike assumptions of bad faith and to discontinue their disruptive behavior.

My name is Hasteur and I endorse this set of proposed sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is so much admin shopping just like the last ANI it's not even funny. First, thorough explanations are not "Obfuscation". Some things in the world are just complicated. Second, sometimes facts can reflect badly, but that's no a function of facts, but interpretation. Just like a bottle on the table that you were supposed to put away can reflect badly on one's sense of responsibility. I suppose it's possible of all who sees this one will oblige and you'll get your way in complete violation of the shopping rule. Agent00f (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The user in question has a perfectly clean block log. Calling for an indefinite block at this point is inappropriate and easily seen as pointy. Please follow proper procedures and an escalating block system. Calling for this right away seems like an attempt to remove an opponent in a dispute, even if that isn't what it is meant as. Silverseren^C 08:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have striked my request for an indef block, however I point to the below created section, their blocking by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and their WP:NOTTHEM groundwork laying on their talk page in response to their block. While I prefer to see the good things in editors, I suspect that no change in behavior will result from the preventative measure that was taken. Hasteur (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Reflections on the Ridiculousness of this AN

1. It was clearly created in ridiculously bad faith. Mtking wholesale deletes a new comment, which is a direct violation of WP:TALKO's editing rule and then has the nerve to FORUMSHOP and ADMINSHOP by creating this AN over his own violation.
2. When I tried to revert back this blatant disregard for wiki rules, Mtking and Treygeek team up to run around 3RR together, and Mtking creates yet another AN to FORUMSHOP/ADMINSHOP against me so that his blatant disregard for policy can't stopped.
3. When that didn't get anywhere, Mtking instead attempts subterfuge to make sure the comment is never seen.

This AN is basically an attempt to hid one comment by either keeping it deleted or blocking the user who created it. It's nothing bad faith to the Nth degree.

Frankly Mtking's actions here an insult to the intelligence of admins by assuming they're can't see through these flagrant attempts at flaunting wiki standards of conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent00f (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think I said it once before, vape the whole project. Failing that, just indef topic ban them all, then maybe this won't come up every week. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Blackmane's solution. Delete all MMA articles, SALT them, blacklist the acronym MMA ... guys can't play well with others - we get DAILY edit-wars, ANI filings, AFD's, PROD's, CSD's ... what a load of crap. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• How about you guys go create a MMA wiki on Wikia? Then you can all fight with each other and we don't have to read about it. --Laser brain (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Hear hear. Swear to heaven, this is a pretty basic situation:

  1) Some editors attempt to apply certain policies and guidelines to a series of articles, such as WP:ROUTINE, WP:IRS, WP:NSPORT, WP:CRYSTAL and the like.

  2) A handful of contrarians, whose arguments tend to rest on illegitimate grounds such as WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL, spam some bulletin boards with oft-obscene exhortations to "take the mofos down," whereupon the effort is flooded by wave after wave of SPAs, sockpuppets and meatpuppets, for whom civility and NPA rules are sick jokes.

  3) Although quite literally dozens of these sock/meatpuppets are indef blocked, for some astonishing reason, a number of parties are taking their filibustering seriously, and this organized, canvassed disruption is allowed to persist.

  These people do not care about Wikipedia. They don't care about our policies, our guidelines, our customs and our rules. They don't merely admit that they're bent on disrupting anyone who attempts to thwart their use of Wikipedia as a webhost for their information, they boast about it. Why in the hell are we letting them do it, and why would we want thereby to admit to the world that a well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies and guidelines to impose their will? Ravenswing 01:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• " well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies"
• The problem has rather been the opposite. The existance of many motivated but unorganized "SPA's" (mainly wiki contributors and users) vs an smaller entrench wiki "elite" (observations which no one disagrees with, given that it's your own statement) is by definition a demonstrate that a "well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies" against a majority of actual users/stakeholder. Committee decisions reached via uninformed opinions, by people who don't understand the situation, against the interests of the afflicted userbase is the main reason why we're still here after many months. It's notable that ALL of the dozens of regular MMA contributors/stakeholders who were part of the process at the start have left or been pushed out. Please think about this per your recommendation above. Agent00f (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Conditionally Support Blackmane's solution. However, the parties targeted are the wrong ones. According to reality thishas been a war between a very few but active AfD enthusiasts and the rest of the community who contribute/read material on wiki. The former are the only ones who've been here since the start of this destructive ordeal and they've had their second chance about 5 chances ago. Everyone else has left, often in disgust. Of course those left get to point the finger. Can someone please provide a brightline rule of how many opportunities before the wiki powers that be says enough with epic failure? Agent00f (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd partially meant my comment to be facetious albeit with a very substantial portion of seriousness. The MMA project is becoming the very definition of a walled garden. This is the last thing an open project needs. This is Wikipedia not fricking Fanboypedia. And purely for my own benefit, how does one go about vaping an entire project? If this rather drastic idea gains traction, it might be worth putting it up for proper community consideration Blackmane (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that this is going to require an arbcom case placing discretionary sanctions of the sort that exist in the Balkans articles, i.e. disruption by SPAs and IPs can be immediately vaped (blocked) by a patrolling admin. The MMA fanboys will never want to play on their own Wiki because it will never get the traffic that Wikipedia does. When you combine hundreds of meatpuppets with not only ignorance of rules but an outright refusal to believe that rules apply to them, you get this mess. We can't feasibly remove all MMA from the encyclopedia, but we can block all of this ridiculousness on sight. Chillllls (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard to say whether Arbcom would take this case on without the full gamut of dispute resolution cards being played, but given the sheer scale of disruption that the MMA fanboys are causing I don't think there would be much option. However, that doesn't really solve the problem, it merely enhances the administrative workload because the fanboys will not give up. The best option may still come down to nuking the project from orbit. A RFC may be the next thing to consider on this. Blackmane (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be tarred by both sides for saying this, but 80% of the MMA content is not a problem. It's only the hyper motivated enthusiast crowd that is causing a problem. Heck, up to when some editors came on the scene we were nearly ready to get the blue ribbon RfC moving along so that we could finish the debate about how to protect the smaller articles that are already here and how to ensure that MMA is covered reasonably. It was suggested previously that the way to get a discretionary sanctions like regime passed would be to go for General Sanctions at WP:AN. I've personally been holding back from using this route because I've wanted to demonstrate good faith above and beyond a WikiSaint so that claims of being biased against MMA topics can be deflected by the aforementioned good faith. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What is expected of this ever snowballing ANI?

Exactly what is expected to be achieved here? This started off as Mtking+Hasteur vs Agent00f and it's basically blown up into something about MMA as a whole. Would the suggestion of an IBAN between Hastuer and Agent00f as well as a topic ban for Agent00f be off the scale? I've generally not been involved with the whole fiasco that is WP:MMA except for a few comments on, yet another, MMA related ANI I made some months back and when yet another MMA fanboy, BigzMMA, was hauled through ANI. I've seen and read through a number of AfDs on MMA related articles and would generally have voted delete on many of them, but decided against involving myself in that swamp. I give Treygeek and the other AFD regulars an enormous amount of credit for maintaining their sanity in the face of the some of the crap they've been through. Blackmane (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't noted yet, the prior attempts at resolving this problem only seem to have a few common denominators. Basic logic would dictate that repeating the same wouldn't generate novel results. However, your interpretation of the same info yields the opinion that the solution rather involves nuking everyone else outside the common denominator of previous failures. This isn't necessarily a terrible plan outside of its basic destructiveness, but do note that it's those outside that circle who will be saddled with the resulting rules/plans. In comparison, nuking the whole subject (including all contributors) seems much more consistent with the that general scheme. Agent00f (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• cough* Notification *cough* You make a suggestion of an IBAN between me and Agent00f, then give credit for "the crap they've been through". Inconsistent much? This entire thread has transformed from it's initial purpose of Agent00f screaming harassment that Mtking and I were perpetrating against him, into a request for undissolveduninvolved admins to start policing the community guidelines (which still has yet to occur), to a examination of how Agent00f has conducted themselves, to a ill planned request for an indefinite block (which I have since retracted), to a further look at how to improve the MMA article space. I will admit to being somewhat uncivil in some of my communication with Agent00f, but I contest the need of an IBAN as I have not been warned once regarding my interaction. Hasteur (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd drop a notice on Agent00f's talk page about this sub-thread but I don't think any posting from me at this time would be well received at all. Hasteur (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just don't screw up the formatting or you'll get barked at. Ravensfire (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I asked the question whether my suggestion is off the scale. I bolded it to make it stand out not to make it a formal proposal. I'm more than happy to strike it out if you have issue with it. My preference would be to have at least something come out of this extended discussion and a rather extreme suggestion was hopefully going to push for a compromising position from others. A rather large amount of time and discussion has gone into this and to have it closed merely as "no admin action required" is, to my mind at least, nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I will agree that admin action (or involvement) is required, but jumping to the level of IBAN is unwarranted. It's been my understanding that interaction bans are for when there is mutual persistent incompatibility with both editors or one going and harassing another. While I don't think we're at that level, I think an uninvolved experienced editor taking Agent00f as a mentoree would be the best way to modify the issues that have been identified while at the same time allowing Agent00f to to continue contributing to the community. I'm staying away from other/further recommendations as I precieve myself to be already very involved with Agent00f's behavior. Hasteur (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"unwarranted"??? How many kb is this thread? Clearly that word cannot be used here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Unwarranted!" There, I used it.

(ahem) I'd say this has gone beyond the scope of ANI at this point. And I personally feel IBANs are useless, as they're far too easy to game around. The whole MMA issue needs to go to ArbCom. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the comment that the only people opposing the MMA articles are a small clique of 3 deletionists: I oppose many of them also, and support the consolidation proposal. So do some others, but they can be seem on the discussions--I don't want to bring them to this mess involutarily. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In like fashion, I oppose many of them, support the portmanteau articles, and spit contemptuously on the premise that failure to give every show of every fed its own article equates to wanting to eliminate MMA from Wikipedia. (Of course, if there were twenty experienced editors all over these articles, no doubt the disruptors would come up with some other Conspiracy To Get Us line of reasoning.) Ravenswing 03:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Endorse the sane and balanced comments of DGG (goes without saying; no deletionist he) and of Ravenswing as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please keep an eye Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability ,a little progress, but more recently more of the same..Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've read through (and am still reading through) the MMANOT talk page and frankly I'm appalled. The discussion that started there was moving forwards with contributions from a number of editors but has since been bogged down in a morass of circular discussions by Agentoof. I'm going to bite the bullet and take the hits that come. I'm going to formally propose a topic ban for Agent00f for sustained disruption at the WT:MMANOT. While I grant that it is constructive to have points debated and holes looked over and patched but not to the point that it becomes badgering. If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to take multiple servings of seafoodBlackmane (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is this some kind of joke? Did you notice that I was just about the only one to bring up domain-specific Rfc-related points (~10 in total) to a domain-specific RfC in a flood of generic comments that don't even mention details? Or that the "circular discussions" is only one user repeating the same thing over and over again in the most obnoxious way possible while dodging a simple question? With a ready group of indignant editors ready to jump on their cross at the slightest perceived slights to start shopping, it's no wonder there are no regular subject contributors left in this discussion. Would you want to put up with this? Agent00f (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I quite doubt that anyone is laughing; certainly I'm not, after looking over that talk page myself. Indeed - after filtering out many personal attacks, broad attacks and irrelevancies - you asked a number of questions. Where pertinent, by and large they were answered. That you might not like the answers is another matter, but I hope and trust you can concede that no one is required to provide you an answer with which you agree.

  As far as "regular subject contributors" go, though, do you count yourself as one? I was quite startled when, upon review of your edit history, I found that you had only made two articlespace comments ever, both two years ago, that you had never improved an article (MMA or otherwise) and that you had never created an article (MMA or otherwise). As I remarked on that talk page this morning, your commentary in the couple weeks you have again been active has been entirely negative: trying to shut down AfDs, attempting to discredit editors with whom you disagree, labeling your opponents as serving a "deletionist agenda" and opposing any proposal to set MMA notability criteria. As such, I would Support a topic ban as Blackmane proposes, until such time as you demonstrate that you intend to be a productive Wikipedia editor. Ravenswing 10:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Where pertinent, by and large they were answered". First, I have no idea what these "questions" are since I don't need to ask questions about the RfC given that I understand the specifics quite well. The one question I ask about how you define "quality" is still un-answered btw despite the waffling.

1. I generally don't feel the need to log in and prove anything to the world when by chance I feel the need to append a technical entry. The main reason I did so for this MMANOT topic was due to the ridiculous SOCK accusations/"investigation" dropped by the deletionist crowd at every opportunity.
2. the accusation I tried to "shut down AfDs" is entirely true: I said it shows bad faith to use them as leverage during a discussion about the AfD's in question. This is a matter of acting ethically, and I don't know why you feel it's a slight to be ethical.
3. if stating that it's unethically to use AfD's "discredits" anyone, I'll be happy to take credit. I'll repeat again: it's unethical to keep AfDing while the articles are under discussion/review. If there are any other basic moral stances you dislike, please list them as well.
4. "deletionist agenda". I very explicitly said a couple people had deletionist histories, just as you very explicitly said my account has a lackluster history. Both are true, yet you seem to think the statement that's not yours is grounds for a block. Why is that?

Also, please note the impropriety of "supporting" sanctions in an argument you're part of. Same for Blackmane. Shopping for a ban after coming out the worse end of a conversation is a display of conflict of interest and unCIVILized behavior. Agent00f (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confused. What I was referring to was your conduct on the MMA notability talk page. If the mooted RfC was put up, I have not yet seen it. Secondly, your repeated insistence that I define "quality" for you is an example of the behavior which we find objectionable; that you tendentiously pick some irrelevant word, point or phrase to belabor. As far as sockpuppet allegations go, it was not at all ridiculous given the recent history of MMA here, where dozens of sock- and meatpuppets have already been blocked. Finally, another disruptive habit you display is in distorting people's words and actions. I am not "shopping" for a ban; I responded to a proposal for one here, as I often do, being modestly active in ANI discussions. My first posts on that talk page were less than six hours ago, to which you were quite prompt in tendentious and hostile responses which violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as even one editor quite sympathetic to you pointed out. Ravenswing 11:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

1. "If the mooted RfC was put up, I have not yet seen it." What are you talking about? You replied in the RfC.
2. "that you tendentiously pick some irrelevant word, point or phrase to belabor". It was a simple question about the core your argument lies around. If you don't want to define it, whatever, just ignore it as you've done everywhere else. This is how you replied: "Now I see that you're not only inexperienced with Wikipedia, but you have almost no experience with article building (with only 280 edits, and only two in articlespace). While reviewing the links at WP:PILLAR would no doubt prove informative, I especially commend to you WP:ITSUSEFUL, as an example of a generally discredited argument at AfD. " An amusing answer given those pages undermined you own point. When that was pointed out, you were the only one throwing out personal accusations: Finally, while you are so eager to discuss the agenda of others ... what about yours? It is plain that you are not on Wikipedia to improve articles - you never have improved an article. It is plain that you are not on Wikipedia to create MMA articles - you never have. You’re not even here to suggest ways to improve Wikipedia - your commentary has been entirely negative, from trying to shut down AfDs, to trying to discredit editors whom you perceive as opposing your agenda, to opposing any proposal to set notability criteria. Would you care to put your labeling and the talk of agendas to rest, sir, or are you comfortable with your own quite blatant agenda - it’s not that you can claim you are on Wikipedia for any other purpose - being the subject of frequent commentary? Now that you seem to be angry this about this, you appear to seek to sanction anyone who dares bring it about.
3. The only remotely "hostile" comment was the remark that the above was petty authority, which is it. The solution here is easy. Don't act with petty authority if that's not a good impression to leave. Agent00f (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• As Chillllls noted below, your battleground mentality is part of the problem. As such, I see no reason to further respond to your filibustering, and will restrict myself to answering other editors, who can reasonably be expected to keep their comments concise and to the point. Ravenswing 16:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse the topic ban as one of the few ways to stop the incessant disruptive attitude. I note that a topic ban from MMA articles is a de facto siteban as Agent00f has shown effectively no interest in editing outside the MMA topic space Hasteur (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Uh, just a note this is the user who's been harassing me for the last two weeks, like just 5 min ago striking out anything which doesn't suit his/her sensibilities on the MMA talk page in direct violation of TALKO rules. It's pretty amusing nothing ever gets done about this kind of DISRUPTIVE behavior, like selective replies and whatnot, and all this AN harassment.
• PS. Hasteur, don't forget to canvas for more sure sympathetic votes like last time. Agent00f (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I've never been involved in any of the discussions on articles/policies/guidelines regarding MMA. Unless someone can point to the relevant interactions that suggest otherwise, I would say I'm a fairly neutral party in this matter. Sure I have some strong opinions about how things could be done better, but that isn't clouding my judgement in this matter. Agent00f, you may think I'm here to "win" an argument, that is entirely untrue. I put forward my perspective and will debate them, but if others decide otherwise, then so be it. It's no skin off my back if what I say is judged not to be something worth pursuing. You may see that I have a conflict of interest here in that I am attempting to silence the opposition. Again, you are wrong as I have no horse in the race with regards to MMA, if you are topic banned then it is the community's decision. I decided to put forward the proposal after studying WT:MMANOT. If the topic ban proposal is not agreed to, that too is the community's decision and will not be something I will pursue adamantly to enact against the community's consensus. I have nothing against you personally and in fact have somewhat enjoyed the sparring, but it is what I perceive in how you have stalled the discussion at the talk page that has led me to decide to make this proposal. Blackmane (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, is this meant as parody? Just look at your own previous comments (note this is was all before the "studying" that supposed changed your mind):

1. Comment I think I said it once before, vape the whole project. Failing that, just indef topic ban them all, then maybe this won't come up every week. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
2. And in the rush to endorse this?: Hear hear. Swear to heaven, this is a pretty basic situation:... Ravenswing 01:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC), oops.
3. Would the suggestion of an IBAN between Hastuer and Agent00f as well as a topic ban for Agent00f be off the scale? I've generally not been involved with the whole fiasco that is WP:MMA except for a few comments on, yet another, MMA related ANI I made some months back and when yet another MMA fanboy, BigzMMA, was hauled through ANI. I've seen and read through a number of AfDs on MMA related articles and would generally have voted delete on many of them, but decided against involving myself in that swamp. I give Treygeek and the other AFD regulars an enormous amount of credit for maintaining their sanity in the face of the some of the crap they've been through. Blackmane (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur also claimed to contact "neutral" members in the last ANI, and I don't recall the admin look too favorably on this when it was shown otherwise. Seem like everyone is quite neutral here, if by neutral we mean kinda hopes the whole thing gets vaped. Remember these are all recorded for posterity. Agent00f (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot see that my opinion, from a bystander's perspective, is that sometimes the best way to deal with an infested paddock is to burn the lot to the ground and start again, then either I'm being too vague or you're not reading between the lines. If it looks like I'm siding with anyone, I'm siding with protecting the 'pedia. In fact, I'm going to expand on my call for your topic ban to include general violations of WP:AGF, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE. Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if by bystander you mean someone not a day ago was high-fiving with those berating "fanboys" and support dropping the bomb on a whole subject to prove a point, not a day ago. Surely you have nothing against someone who vehemently opposed the idea, and who you've now found is the only domain expert and stakeholder interest advocate left in the discussion. Oh and btw, the bomb was your proposal. But let's be fair here, you never intended these bombs to start any BATTLE, and it's just awful you need to block someone for the good of wiki. Is it standard policy to assume admins to be idiots who'll believe this? Agent00f (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have started a RfC/U in regards to Agent00f's conduct. Pending participation, I suggest that the suggestion of sanctions be tabled. Hasteur (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects with related walled garden problems

To be truly honest, the underlying issue is about notability and I think it affects more than just MMA. The core question is simply do major MMA pay-per-view events, such as those held regularly by UFC, meet the notability requirements with just the basic fight information (location, crowd, payouts) and results? That question isn't limited to just MMA though. Take tennis. The tennis project's notability guidelines say that top tier tournaments are notable, but secondary ones aren't, but with 15 seconds of effort, I find 2010 GEMAX Open. For all the MMA drama, any of UFC event articles have far more information than that article. With a bit more effort, you can find similar articles for many other sports. I'll give the MLB and NFL folks huge credit that you don't see as much of this in those areas, especially in football. I have no question that any give NFL game, especially a big rivalry game, generates more and lasting coverage than the average UFC PPV event. There are some attempts to answer the notability question (when it's not being derailed by someone declaring a revolution), but it's a bigger question than just MMA. There are large number of articles across Wikipedia that are simply results for various tournaments / events. Per WP:ROUTINE, those should be simple and easy AFD's. Anyone care to start trying that? You can see the madness from MMA, I somehow think other sports will be just as bad if not worse. Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Thank you for being thoughtful. Unfortunately these aren't novel insights, but rather tend to crop up each of the half dozen attempts at resolving this issue. Even more unfortunate, historically the persons bring up these insights and subsequent solutions have been ignored or otherwise driven off. Had they been acted on, there's no doubt this would've over months ago and probably set an excellent precedent for all other other entries of the type (you've noted). This isn't at all to trivialize what you're saying (esp since I entirely agree), just noting that we've already been here before. IOW, being more thoughtful about the specifics is very unfortunately not the solution.
2. As mentioned, these types of thoughtful replies constitute the minority on the subject. In fact through direct observation of this AN as a microcosm of the broader dilemma, we can see that it's mostly just throwing around trite WP:BULLSHIT. It's uncertain whether this is simply a relection of an opinion that application of "established" processes takes priority over thinking about what's going on; or at this point, implies a lack of capacity to self-refection or understand 1. Without the kind of detail/insight which you're trying to provide, it's not possible to resolve problems except by accident, and we haven't been that lucky due to WP:TLDR and WP:ASSUMETHISWORKS. Put another way, this is a classic case where the aggregate level of intelligence displayed has been insufficient to solve it, but this kind of observation is inherently difficult to appreciate.
3. This specific proposition of "nuke it from orbit" is the perfect reflection of the mindset and situation just described. The general idea is not only that topics which aren't "encyclopedic" don't belong here, but issues which can't be resolved by the same mindset don't belong here. While this isn't a bad point to make since compatibility with the wiki zeitgeist is a concern, but the solution proposed has nothing to do with the broader goal of serving wiki users. My main observation on it is that it's a mindset and idea mainly propagated by those with no stake in the outcome: iow, "I don't care for this subject so let's just get rid of it." Agent00f (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look at the link that Ravensfire posted for the tennis tournament, if you go to the category there are literally hundreds of articles which are little more than results scorecards and draws. Interestingly, sampling just a few almost all of them were created by just one editor. In fact, I randomly sampled about 30 articles from that category for 2009 and almost every one was created by them, with the exception of maybe 1 or 2. The ones I sampled in 2010 were created by another user. This is a little off topic but this surface scratching is only just revealing the scale of the issue here. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; these type of walled gardens are commonplace in many Wikiprojects, even those that don't focus on sports topics. When an attempt is made by a non-project editor to enforce what should be a site-wide notability policy for inclusion or an element of the MOS, the project editors come out of the woodwork to give their reasons as to why articles on such-and-such topic are exempt from the rules (mostly clever variations of ILIKEIT). It's not that the MMA project is the worst when it comes to stuff like this, they just have the most visible (and arguably the most obtuse) IP meatpuppets at this time. Chillllls (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Projects sometimes set their own notability rules or style conventions &c (with style, it's more often the habit of one or two prolific editors, rather than a written guideline); this is not inherently a bad thing, but when those project rules conflict with en.wikipedia rules, we get lots of drama and timewasting. In terms of notability, it often leans towards inclusionism, but not always. IIRC there was one case where a project had a spring-clean and took a bunch of articles to AfD which appeared to fall short of the project's notability guideline even though some passed the GNG by a considerable margin. I stumbled across one project which had a very widely used template which is inherently incompatible with the MOS. There are limits to centralisation - and I wouldn't call for millions of ritual edits to shift articles from project-style to MOS-style - but the conflicts between projects rules and en.wikipedia rules are a problem which we should try to mitigate. bobrayner (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've split this section off as it's not really related to the situation above and may just move this to the talk page, although we could continue this discussion on one of our talk pages until we can come up with some sensible plan of action (if such is required or desirable). We're coming to the point we're some of us have identified a deep rooted issue and it looks like this really requires a much wider community input than just a few people having a "hmmmm" moment on ANI. I'm not against any particular wikiptoject (although the MMA makes me sigh...repeatedly) but allowing each project to go off and establish their own rules and guidelines outside those of the core policies is going to be a nightmare to fix. Blackmane (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. It's been a problem in the diacritics wars, too. It's not a crisis but we really ought to do something... somewhere... bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I contest there's a back room deal going on to make a lower standard for MMA than the rest of en.WP. We're having the discussion at the SNG page for MMA to help define a very specific set of "It Must Have"s so that the MMA community can know exactly what is needed.Hasteur (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree to that. There needs to be a stringent set of absolute minimum baseline notability requirements that all sports projects should adhere to with no loosening. Projects should be free to build on the requirements but not weaken them to their liking so that articles can scrape by with notability. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironically this is what the MMA userbase has said from the start: the general guidelines for established sports contains elements which are difficult to apply to the unique circumstances and format of MMA, a new burgeoning sport (high double digit year over year growth). This is a general problem for all such sports, and MMA is only notable for the often negative attention it draws from some elements in society. However, instead of using this an opportunity to fix the problem, we're only allowed to look at thoughtless and trite bandaids. Agent00f (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What the MMA user(fan)base wants is to have the SNG loosened so they can have their individual event pages policy abiding. This opens up a can of worms that allows virtually any sport to have similar pages. How popular a sport is, or is becoming, is irrelevant. Blackmane (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. The tactic they've gone with is obfuscation, delay, denigration of opponents and ignoring points made. Ravensfire (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a very substantive proposal on the talk page which avoids these problems. Unfortunately the anti-fans here continue to make assertion despite ignorance of these specifics. Also, Ravensfire, I can't speak for anyone else but can you point to which points I've avoided? I'd be happy to address them provide you can promise a reply in kind. All I see is the exact opposite on this page: dozens of points from me conveniently ignored by anti-fans under the banner of TLDR. Many of them were directly to you. This seems extremely hypocritical but I'll assume good faith. If it was because they were difficult to understand, I can try to reformulate. Agent00f (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"This sees extremely hypocritical but I'll assume good faith." Facepalm Chillllls (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The hypocrisy is tautological, the only factor open to interpretation is intent. How would you describe it instead? That is not a rhetorical question. Agent00f (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you're saying the hypocrisy may be unintentional when many of your posts here and at the WP:MMANOT talk page heavily imply that you believe there is a grand conspiracy of four or five editors attempting to deliberately sidetrack discussion of the MMA guidelines. As to my facepalm, I simply thought the juxtaposition of the accusation of hypocrisy and AGF was humorous. You can play rhetorical games all you want (and I actually enjoy them); but c'mon, I know apophasis when I see it. Chillllls (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no belief or assuming involved here. 3 editors have been the common denominator of all previous failures. This is a simple observable fact (do you disagree?). That they often work together is also a fact stated by an admin who worked with them, and also readily evidenced when they want to delete something (always vote together, always revert war together, whereas no one else is nearly as organized). The hypocrisy is also not much of an "accusation". It's blatantly obvious that Ravensfire, et al, stated the MMA fanbase avoids their points, all while ignoring many many points to the extent of remaining silent when this behavior is called out. This is recorded right above. That's what hypocrisy is by definition. I don't see how any of this is a "game". If anything, being told to AGF when I say a bottle is resting on the table feels more like a game. Agent00f (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, the only reason there's "3 editors" instead of a landslide is because a small group of, we'll call them "pro-MMA editors" for want of a better term, have so poisoned the well that nobody who actually cares about Wikipedia policy dares go there anymore. it's such an absolutely disgusting morass of fanboyism, incivility, personal attacks and bad faith that we've all washed our hands and left in disgust because we have better things to do than suffer the slings and arrows of outraged 'editors' for whom anything other than a page for every event, ever, is proof of a cabal that's out to destroy MMA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet, for all those previous failures, only a consistent tiny minority with no interest in the subject have been allowed to control the agenda while hopping on their cross, while regular MMA stakeholders (you know, people who'll be saddled with the rules) continue to either leave in disgust or forcibly. Can someone please provide a brightline rule of how many failures a given executive group are granted before we allow pursuit of alternative strategies? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell ya what - when you stop with the attacks on folks you disagree with, I'll start responding to your concerns. I'm way past tired of the crap from you that's directed soley at editors and their motives. That's been your MO for quite a while and you've been called out about it, but haven't chanced. Until you decide to change, quite simply, I'm going to ignore you. Ravensfire (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please clarify if something in my fact-checking or analysis is amiss, or it just you don't like what the results say? Personally, I don't think the results are surprising given the history of this whole affair. They're unfortunate, I agree, but not unexpected. This isn't a rhetorical question and the answer quite important to my decision. Agent00f (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the big problem here is that you are fundamentally unable to comprehend this situation in a non-battleground mentality. You see it as a conflict between some cabal of "non-interested" editors who want to gut your focus area and a few valiant defenders of your noble sport. Your "Facts of the Case" in the above section is a perfect example of this: you describe your personal perception of how you see the debate as a list of objective facts! Your analysis is just that, your own personal subjective analysis. How do you not understand that distinction? You vacillate between alleging conpiracies and condescending dismissals of reasoning that doesn't fit your POV. You think you're frustrated? Try to step outside yourself for a moment and see things from another point of view. Chillllls (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I fully realize that it's not trivial to the see the difficulty of either my situation or anyone who dissents against a very dominant opinion on this topic. However, simply look at the record of my first week on the talk page: but a small sample of the threats ("final warning") and intimation. I've had so many calls for sanctions against me by now from the same predictable parties that I mostly act a comedy routine. If there's a BATTLE going on, it's not been one that anyone on the wrong side of dominant opinion on this subject chooses, unless their participation is that choice. When I look at the other side, I see mostly cross hopping by people who game the system with questionable ethics (eg. the "neutral" editor who just happens to call for nuking the space and everyone on the wrong side). Perhaps I've become biased, though, so maybe you can point to what they've been suffering in comparison. If anything with time I've only seen just how much they milk it.

The real irony though is despite my profession which dictates what constitutes "fact" to humanity, I still get these ridiculous accusations that I don't understand how empirical observation works. In a way it's poignant for a community like wiki to by populated by know-it-alls, but OTOH it's also why tight citation requirements exist on mainstream articles. The technical side of the project has quite lackluster sourcing, yet seems generally safe from the ridiculous AfD campaigns. Should we expect Liouville_function or Soft_Heap to come under attack by this group anytime soon or should MMA peeps make their articles just as obscure to protect them? Agent00f (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINTy nominations of ANTM articles

Some MMA fanboys:

• Mississippistfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.147.72.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• AugustWest1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have nominated/called for the deletion of some ANTM articles in the mistaken belief it will somehow annoy me, they are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model. Can an admin have a look. Mtking ^(edits) 21:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Never did I nominate any article for deletion. I gave my opinion on an existing aFd, and in no way did I ever mention you or make it personal. You drag me to ANI in retaliation? I quoted Wiki policy when giving my Delete vote. You have a problem with it? Debate it in the aFd. AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Curious - based on your strikeout, will you also be going through and striking out all hostile terms being directed towards Mtking? Ravensfire (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Curious, which are you referring? The aFd's for ATM made no mention of Mtking, and I believe that is the subject of this ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustWest1980 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your (non) answer which was pretty much as expected. Ravensfire (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not directed any hostile terms at MtKing, but he most certainly directed one at me, which I struck-out. It is not my job to go protect Mtking from insults on WP, but I can most certainly react when they are hurled at me. I guess you felt it needed unstruck, so you're also okay with insults being hurled in ANI. Noted. AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Does use of a derogatory insult like fanboys and resorting to name-calling really proper for ANI? AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The word "fanboy" is used 20 (now 21 times) on this page so it would appear so. Mtking ^(edits) 21:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course the person using the insulting term will jump to defend it. Definitely not civil. AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand this whole section which btw assumes bad faith. Shouldn't there be a discussion led by people outside of modeling interests on the relevant talk page instead, while these AfD's are ongoing? I'm sure AugustWest1980 and other neutral parties will stop if the modeling fangirls or any others out to ruin wiki agree to a solution that divides up the shows by calendar months. Personally I don't know anything about modeling, but I'd vote SUPPORT for that kind of article design. To be fair though, in the words of Ravenswing, all these frivolous reality TV shows hardly seem notable given they have no lasting effect on anything. Agent00f (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have closed the two AfDs with a SNOW keep, as "obvious bad faith nominations". The MMA problem is difficult enough without this sort of game-playing. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• In the same vein would you close MMA space nominations if we're able to demonstrate "obvious bad faith" or are some subjects or editors more equal than others here? Agent00f (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• I give a support for going a permanent (indefinite) block in these three users. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think we should indef the IP address, but a block is needed due to the IPs bragging that he/she can't be blocked, and gross incivility.  I don't know why Mississippistfan isn't already indeffed, maybe someone is trying to find a sock master.  I think that AugustWest1980 issue should be considered separately.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• I will admit that I may have had a hand in Mississippifan's participation in this set of AfDs by suggesting that if they truly believed that some WWE articles that they had complained about on another user's talk page were not notable that they should WP:SOFIXIT Hasteur (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean?  Special:Contributions/Mississippistfan is a new account with 2 of the first 4 edits being AfD nominations.  Both AfD nominations were both procedurally closed as bad faith nominations.  By implication of the fact that Speedy Keep's can't be rendered with a Delete vote present, AugustWest1980's delete votes were ruled as inadmissible.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's on User Talk:Mississippistfan. I'm trying to put all my cards, good and bad, on the table. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User:Beyond My Ken on Reach for the Sky

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

---

User:Beyond My Ken is making a small but obviousy misplaced change to Reach for the Sky. He reacts to my reversal (including an explanation) with active attempts to prevent a discussion by repeatedly erasing the pertinent section on the talk page. Please make him join the discussion. Thanks. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox just protected the page. Neither of you had any productive effect — the comment does not change anything. It's simply a request not to erase a nearby space. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The nearby space is what the non-discussion is about. There shouldn't be a space.

BTW: Do you think an IP wouldn't have gotten away with the shit Beyond pulled? Not only avoiding the discussion, but actively disrupting it? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Nyytend: User:79.223.4.134 and User:91.10.47.34 (clearly the same editor) are very probably socks of banned user Otto4711. I presented the evidence that got Otto's latest sock account - User:Iridescentlavender - indef blocked, and this seems like some puerile backlash. (Otto's well-known for harrassing those who file SPIs against him -- just look at his behavior toward User:Lihaas.) The IPs are clearly WikiVeterans, not newbies -- they hit the ground running -- but the behavioral evidence is not yet sufficient to compare against Otto's many blocked socks: although editing articles about TV shows is one of his focuses. Filing an SPI would be silly, not only because the evidence is thin, but CUs generally won't connect an IP to a named account (although why not when it comes to long-banned sockmeisters I don't really understand).

In any event, I see no reason to discuss anything with probable socks, especially when they want to discuss a general issue on an article talk page, and especially when they post a demanding comment title and tell me to "Go", as if I was a recalcitrant servant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So by your logic, Otto's plan went like this: 1. Remove a comment from an article. 2. Hope that you will be around to re-add it. Does that sound like a reasonable plan?

I'm nobody's sock, my provider switches IPs from time to time. You should not violate AGF quite this blatantly. (I'm also not a newbie, but never claimed I was.)

I started running when it was obivous that you don't want to discuss the matter, and even deleted the discussion for others. Imagine that would have happened to you: What would your reaction be? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny, you sound very much like Iridescentlavender when he was protesting his innocence. As for AGF, well, I have a pretty good nose for socks, and a good track record when I report them -- not perfect, by any means, but good enough that I've learned I can trust my instincts. When that happens and my SockSense is buzzing, my ability to AGF is quite limited. As a colleague of Carl Sagan once remarked, having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brain falls out.

What "Otto's plan" was, I haven't the foggiest idea. I find it almost impossible to understand the motivations of a person who will come back to edit Wikipedia time and time again after it's been made quite clear that his inability to edit collegially makes him unwanted here, and who returns with the full knowledge that he will erventually be found out and shut down. A reasonable and mature person would find another outlet for their energies - but that does not describe Otto4711. I really can't grok him at all -- but fortunately I don't have to understand his behavior in order to recognize it.

Regarding the demanding comments on the article talk page: article talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, they are not intended for general discussions about the topic or off-topic discussions, including general Wikipedia-related discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"article talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, they are not intended for general discussions about the topic or off-topic discussions, including general Wikipedia-related discussions". This is a very reasonable statement, and seems well grounded in policy. Perhaps the IP user can open a discussion on a policy page to discuss article consistency in formatting, and this section of ANI and the talk section could be closed? JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please point out which policy page that would be. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given WP:COMMENT, I think a new section on WT:MOS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware ofWP:COMMENT, and since it supports my position, I see no reason to open up a discussion there. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure it supports your position (which is that no comment should be included), as it states "They should be used judiciously, because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors. Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode.". That's why a discussion may be warranted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." (my emphasis) --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See my response to this point on the article's talk page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What, a new one, I thought I was Otto?

Anyway, put up or shut up. Next time you accuse me of socking without evidence, I'm reporting you for making personal attacks.

The discussion is about the article. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a discussion about the article would be a content dispute, which would be inappropirate for AN/I, which deals with behavioral problems -- presumably why you brought me here. The thing is, when you file an AN/I report, the behavior of all parties becomes the scope of the discussion, including you, the filing party (or "OP"). This is why my thoughts about your probable sockiness are appropriate. It's quite often the case that an AN/I filing will bounce back and bite the OP; we even have a page about it: see WP:BOOMARANG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So I could legitimately accuse you of threatening me with a lawyer, with no evidence whatsoever? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any difference in the page with or without the comment line. Why is the IP edit-warring over something so monumentally trivial? And how does he get away with calling it "vandalism" when it clearly is no such thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

AGF much? Why don't you ask the same question about Beyond My Ken?

It's vandalism because he was damaging the article, without even an edit comment. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

His change is invisible to the reader, therefore it does not damage the article. And your insistence otherwise demonstrates bad faith on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed it.

The main isssue (and the reason this was blown out of proportion) is his disruptive "discussion" style and his personal attacks against me. That's why we are here. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I really think it got "blown out of proportion" because you chose to come here with it, in the attempt to force me to discuss something in an inapproriate forum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course I came here. You left me no choice by actively preventing any discussion about it. What else was I supposed to do?

What do you think would have happened if you picked up the discussion on /Talk, only to point out that the forum was wrong? Maybe even pointing out the right place? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(ECx3) Call it a personal policy: just as the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists, I don't do discussions with socks, once I'm sure enough that they're socks -- this current discussion being a rare exception. (BTW, Bugs, the IP's willingness to fight over a trivial thing only really makes sense when you posit that the purpose is to annoy me.) Incidentally, I was EC'd in trying to say that the discussion was clearly going to continue to chase its tail, so I don't plan to participate further. Any editor -- apart from the OP -- who wants more input from me, please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll dip my toe in again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. "BTW, Bugs, Beyond's willingness to fight over a trivial thing only really makes sense when you posit that the purpose is to annoy me." Now what? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That little blurb is not visible unless you go into edit mode specificaly looking for it. It makes no difference in the way the article displays in "read mode". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A small spacing difference in read mode has been reported, which is the point being made by the IP. However, I believe the difference is not materiel, and thus not worthy of dispute. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sheesh! All this over adding a nice bit of white space at the arse end of an article??? BTW, I liberally add those spacings to articles. Makes the page look nicer. Just remembered that there is some sort of footer template enclusure template. Might try and get a top spacing put on that. I am not holding my breath. Hard enough to do the the dab template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit I cannot discern a good faith reason for this huge dispute over something that is not an issue. This ANI section should be closed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I want back the 15 minutes that I wasted reading this. I ECed with Errant, who basically said the same thing I was trying to close it with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you'd feel better if you blocked the IP, as he's now continuing his ridiculous edit war on this incredibly minor matter, in other articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to stir shit up, but the change was supposed to have a visible difference: This diff shows the effect he was intending. The two extra newlines got stripped out, which BMK evidently didn't notice, and so the two versions that were being edit-warred over were functionally the same. The fact that he neither of the editors even looked to see if their reversions were even affecting (much less improving) the article is really the final, capping lunacy to this whole thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP-hopper is deliberately reverting BMK now, in other articles, further demonstrating bad faith. I'm guessing he hasn't been blocked yet simply because the admins are enjoying the ping-pong match. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting Beyond's reverts of my edits which are implementing WP:MOS. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I chucked the IP a 24hr block for continuing to edit war over trivialities (on another article). At least I think I did... some parts of the interface say he is blocked, but it threw up a wierd error when I blocked him, and it is not showing in the logs :S --Errant ^(chat!) 23:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems to have worked, just is not logged :S Anyway - we immediately have an unblock request. Someone else can handle it from here, I need my bed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Handled. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Additional discussion about BMK's behavior

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

---

It was pointed out to me that closing the chapter on the disruptive IP also shut down conversation regarding BMK's conduct. That was not my intent. I am opening this subthread (as the closer) to facilitate the requested discussion on BMK without rendering any opinion on the matter. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Subsequent to this re-opening, it appears that BMK understands that his behavior could use improvement, based upon the acceptance of the awarded Oncorhynchus. I suspect acknowledgement of the need for better behavior is all that is needed. Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I must say that this issue arose because a probable sock deliberately chose something that would rile him up. With that I entirely empathize with him as someone who socks have targeted for years. When I know I'm dealing with a sock, I throw AGF and rules against edit warring out the window and so should BMK. Socks are unwanted. The sock was going to find any issue to engage him on.

That said above, I doubt this "I suspect acknowledgement of the need for better behavior is all that is needed". The addition of his < ! spacing > hidden comments and other style issues, and edit warring to keep them, has been going on for his entire wiki career over three accounts. His previous accounts have a block log for it. He has his own peculiar style that he puts on articles that goes against the project approved MOS, and he justifies edit warring with WP:IAR. He's been asked, and refuses, to discuss his style differences with editors on the MOS talk pages. The MOS must take into account more than just typical desktop usage, and as pointed out to him, some of those style differences he implements are actually destructive to users not using a desktop browser. He continues to ignore that his style doesn't benefit the project and creates a bad experience for some readers.

This issue was raised, and asked for justification by others besides the IP sock. It shouldn't just be ignored because of the obvious issue of being provoked by a sock. This is a cooperative project and his attitude when confronted on non-standard style is... pompous. This does need correction. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

RfC/U, maybe? Unless this is garnering support for some sort of necessary preventative block, to protect the project from harm, of course. Doc talk 06:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The only real harm is the minor annoyance of having to manually verify every one of BMK's edits to ensure he hasn't snuck any whitespace in. I agree that in theory RFC/U is the right approach here if only to get a record of this somewhere less ephemeral than ANI or in some old talk archive (under a different user name in some cases). The difficulty is convincing someone to waste an entire afternoon of his life writing said RFC/U. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Let me clarify something: You said " When I know I'm dealing with a sock, I throw AGF and rules against edit warring out the window and so should BMK" That is very bad advice. Many a time have I seen someone reporting socks get blocked because of their behavior during the Checkuser process. If you think someone is a sock, got to SPI, report it, avoid them. 3RR against a sock will still get you blocked for edit warring if their edits are not clearly vandalism or major BLP violations. And there always exists the chance that you are wrong, in which case, you have acted in bad faith and edit warred against a non-sock, likely biting a new user. A claim of "sock" doesn't exempt you from the guidelines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the above. I agree with all of it.

I believe it was me who requested the reopening of the thread because I was not able to comment before the thread was closed. I asked User:Toddst1 here for advice to proceed and I thank him for reopening the thread.

Basically, what happened I believe on Reach for the Sky was that User:Beyond My Ken inserted whitespace here, was removed here by User:91.10.47.34, was readded by User:Beyond My Ken here and removed again here by User:Bzuk. On the talk page of the article in question, there is consensus that white space is unnecessary, and aforementioned undos of the article indicate the nonstandard of User:Beyond My Ken's formatting.

User:Beyond My Ken continues to add white space to the articles. Obviously this is against consensus because User:Beyond My Ken has been told not to do this and because he is the only person who does this; In this same thread I explained the guideline where it whitespace should not be used and suggested if he wanted to change the guideline that he can propose to do so at its talk page. I hoped he stopped adding whitespace but it is obvious he is oppositional and does not and uses WP:IAR to continue the formatting. And it seems this is the only guideline that he does not want to follow. The rationale behind NOT using his "white space formatting" is that it is excessive.

Here, User:Beyond My Ken files a Sockpuppetry Investigation because multiple unrelated editors have told him to stop inserting idiosyncratic formatting. On the Sockpuppetry Investigation, an independent editor User:Viriditas says: "Many, many, many users have complained about Beyond My Ken's edits. This does not mean they are all the same users. It means, Beyond My Ken needs to stop making those edits.".

Regarding RFC/U, I can file it, but I would appreciate some help and pointers as it will be my RFC/U and I am not sure the work that is involved.Curb Chain (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, the SPI was closed by the clerk as " The three accounts appear Unrelated at this point. There are similarities, yes, but no smoking gun. ", with no comment as the content dispute. The observations of a single editor regarding a dispute in content in the middle of an SPI isn't something I normally consider as demonstrating a consensus, so not really relevant here. This edit by Ken [29] seems to indicate that he gets the point, and this was after his last edit on the page. Granted, the page is fully protected now, but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt since he has admitted some error. At this stage while the article is fully protected, there is still nothing for us to do at ANI, however, and I am not inclined to unprotect it. What I DO suggest, is that everyone, especially Ken, go to the talk page of the article and make the consensus clear. And do so in a neutral, fair and polite manner. It could start as simple as "I think $x because of $y". This is missing, and is always the first step in dispute resolution. Until that happens, I see no point in taking any action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've also added a friendly reminder on his talk page, which should suffice and get the point across. If not, then he has no one but himself to blame. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Writ Keeper trouted me on my talk page regarding my edits on Reach for the Sky with the comment:

"Edit warring is one thing, stupidly lame edit warring is another, but stupidly lame edit warring where you're not even using the right revision to revert to? C'mon now."

He was correct, my actions were distictly sub-optimal, which is why I accepted the trout. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any other issue, which I have no plans to discuss here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning to go ahead with your white space editing?Curb Chain (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Given his complete dismissal of the complaints against him based on the rationale that every editor who has complained is part of a tiny minority of malcontents, and that he recently edited the MoS with a seemingly-innocuous "clarification" to the introduction of whitespace of articles with the purpose of allowing him to lawyer away because his introduction of whitespace is not "inadvertent", I'd say that's a given. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BMK's changes make no visible difference in the articles. There's no reason to do it, and there's also no reason to remove it. It looks the same either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. Someone gave me a better example. It's still not worth edit-warring over. If it's detrimental to iPhone users, or whatever, then it should be stopped.

Besides which, a single white space works just as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is an unnecessary white space. I don't think so. In the example of mobile phone users, it can be a lot of useless scrolling and a lot of useless space that doesn't help the reader. Adding an extra line is not helpful, so unless there is a functional reason to have it in, I don't think this is necessary.Curb Chain (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, a single white space doesn't cause "a lot of useless space". No need to to get drawn out over something so minor. Moreover, a lot of his edits REDUCED the amount of space currently wasted. Let it go. Buffs (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We are simply asking him to stop doing it. As demonstrated by your comment, the white space may be minor, but still nonstandard. And regularly removed.

WP:COMMENT: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode."

Wikipedia:BODY#Headings and sections: "multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article"

MOS:HEAD: "Only two or more consecutive blank lines will add more white space in the public appearance of the page."

WP:WHITE (summary: don't add whitespace)

WP:MOS#Formatting issues - blank space ... is for the style sheet.

{{-}} documentation says don't use it to add whitespace.

Help:Hidden text - don't use hidden text to create whitespace.Curb Chain (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty of non-standard spacing throughout wikipedia. Obsessing over this minor trivia does nothing to improve wikipedia for the readers, who are generally interested in article content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in both the look and the content of an article. As such, keeping things similar sounds reasonable.Curb Chain (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Then you had best stop hassling specific editors, and start plowing through every article from A to Z and fix this horrible problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope I can do that without having the same problem made and reverted.Curb Chain (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Out of process deletion and creation protection by User:JzG

I knew this was going to have to come here. I knew full well when I asked for the articles to be reinstated, he was going to refuse. But, hey, had to take the chance. And now we're here.

User:JzG has deleted two articles, L'CHAIM Vodka and Shemspeed, under CSD G11. He also then creation protected the articles so that no one could recreate them, which is entirely out of process, as there was no creation spamming or the threat to do so. Furthermore, both L'CHAIM and Shemspeed are clearly notable topics and both of the articles prior to deletion had such secondary sources in them. L'CHAIM could definitely have used some writing fixing, but it's about a product, which is difficult to get sounding perfectly neutral. But it was no way so non-neutral that it should have been deleted under G11 and Shemspeed didn't sound POV at all, it was a fine article.

I ask that this noticeboard please review this out of process deletion and creation protection (salting) of these two articles and I request that both articles be reinstated. Silverseren^C 21:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review....after you show me where you then followed the correct process by going to WP:REFUND or WP:DRV (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you allowed to do a REFUND on an article purposefully deleted by an admin and creation protected? I didn't think of DRV though. But that wouldn't be the proper place to discuss the improper actions taken here. Silverseren^C 21:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that needed if G11 is misapplied? G11 specifically states An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. The deletion comment Advertorial written by self-admitted paid editor seems to be the reason. But does that make it a G11? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it as an "improper action" needing immediate action by an admin. Take it to DRV and if consensus is to overturn the deletion, an admin can unsalt the articles then. Before that decision is made, it's a bit premature to take other actions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

You don't think it's improper for an admin to delete and salt two articles because they dislike that the creator is a paid editor? Silverseren^C 21:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The deleting admin felt they were spam. Normally, that's what we do to spam. The issue is whether or not the rest of the community agrees it was spam. That's what DRV is for. If it's found they were not spam, then it becomes actionable. Until then, it's a bit premature to jump to ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Understood, i've started the DRVs. Silverseren^C 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be helpful to read this or this for a fuller understanding of this issue. Note also that L'CHAIM vodka co-sponsored a festival mounted by Shemspeed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The connections between the two have nothing to do with their notability or the state of the article prior to deletion. Silverseren^C 21:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRV is down the hall, third door on the right. Determining whether a speedy deletion is out of process is squarely within DRV's jurisdiction. T. Canens (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

DRVs started. Silverseren^C 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Related issue

For reasons which aren't clear to me, the three images that were used on L'CHAIM vodka have not been deleted with the article. They have been marked as CC-by-SA, but appear to be non-free content. There is an OTRS ticket, but OTRS volunteers tend to be very gullible non-critical when it comes to claims of ownership. One of these images (File:LCHAIM Matisyahu.jpg) was copied over to Commons (commons:File:LCHAIM Matisyahu.jpg). although I believe that non-free content is no allowed on Commons. Taking the image which is obviously an ad, an editor has cropped it down to File:Matisyahu in shades.jpg and it is now being used in Matisyahu. Convoluted enough for you? Can someone take a close look at these images and decide which license is appropriate and if they should be on Commons or not? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have checked the OTRS ticket, and I am dramatically unconvinced that the person who sent the email has any authority to give permissions related to this image. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't follow. Since he's a paid editor, the images he got would have been directly from his clients, so the permissions should be fine. Silverseren^C 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think that the client (and the models, and the advertising agent, and the photographer, etc.) are all in on making their logo and advert available under GFDL and CC? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Who sent the OTRS ticket then? And, yes, I would expect Bernie44 to do so, since he's properly followed all of the other article making rules, via neutrality and referencing. Silverseren^C 23:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Being paid to create an article and being permitted to alter the copyright on an image are entirely separate issues. This is actually one of the most common problems with tickets sent to the permissions queue: a random employee of a company has absolutely zero legal control over that company's intellectual property unless such control is officially granted by the actual copyright owner. Many OTRS volunteers don't know this, and even fewer paid editors do. As for who sent the email, I do not wish to say due to the OTRS privacy policy. But I can say that I do not believe the person who sent it has the authority. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(after e/c) I'll second what Someguy said, since he said it better than I was going to say it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernie44 might not have known that actually or thought that someone with the ability to release it had done so, since he probably just asked his client (more specifically, the person in the client's company that was working with him) to go about getting the permissions released for the image and Bernie44 just gave them the directions to do so. I'm sure with some clarification though, Bernie44 will be able to get the proper permissions. Actually, i'm going to go notify him about this discussion, since it actually involved him directly now. I should have notified him about the DRVs anyways, I forgot about that, oops. Silverseren^C 23:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If he does come here, there is something else he should know about the permissions. We need an actual contact from the copyright owner directly, ideally from an email address we can be confident is the copyright-holder. An attached digital letter that could have theoretically been written by anyone doesn't cut it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bernie44 here. Permission to upload the L'Chaim images was given to me by L'Chaim's owner, not a "random employee" of the company. I was under the impression that the image's owner had the authority to place it into the creative commons. I wasn't aware it was necessary for the image's owner to send the email granting permission to do so, but now I know. I didn't intend to violate any of the rules regarding the creative commons. If an email from L'Chaim's owner is the next step in the process, please let me know. Thank you. --Bernie44 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the next step. I'd like you to know that I never thought you were breaking the rules, rather that you didn't know them. We have these rules in place because people actually do show up handing us copyright content, claiming to have the authority, and even pretending to be the owner of a company! Ideally, you can have L'Chaim's owner see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This was brought to the OTRS Noticeboard before it was transferred to Commons. Permissions should probably be verified for the newspaper covers that Bernie44 uploaded to Commons as well. [30][31] Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 02:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernie44, I would be surprised if the company wants to change the license on these. If the intention is to use them in an article about L'CHAIM vodka, then I believe all that is needed is for them to be properly identified as non-free media. One is probably enough, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, I agree that one image is enough. I will look into identifying the images as non-free media, and using just one on the page. Someguy1221, thank you for your response. So I'll either identify the images as non-free media or have the owner send an email as you suggest. Gobōnobo ^{+ c}, I already went through a long process/discussion after the first newspaper image I uploaded in February 2011. I located the discussions - they are here and here. I don't feel this warrants further discussion, but let me know if you think it does. --Bernie44 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the requests concerning the newspaper images were not handled by someone more competent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The first step is waiting for the close of the Deletion Review discussions. If the articles are restored, as seems very likely at this time, then there might be a reason to discuss whether JzG is unduly prejudiced against paid editors to the extent of not following normal deletion policy. (I'm not entirely sure I would blame him in this case as much as I usually would, considering the publicity about this particular editor off-wiki). Most admins learn from an overturn at Del Rev, and that handles the problem--encouraging them to learn is part of the purpose of that process. When the admin continues on the same wrong-headed course that was opposed by clear consensus, then it may be worth going further. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Considering Jzg has continued to threaten to redirect the Diwon article even if the AfD closes as Keep, I assume that he has yet to understand what he's doing wrong. Silverseren^C 00:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Diff of this comment by Jzg, please, for the lazy? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor help

I hope this is the correct place to post (if not, please point me in the right direction). User:Baku Shad-do has been removing sourced content from the article Crosses (band) (diff, diff, diff, diff). There has been a discussion about the genre before here (which I pointed out to the editor) that argues for the inclusion. The editor's argument is that the sources on the genre article prove that sources are wrong because of their description/definition of what the genre is. However, he has failed to provide sources that specifically state that Crosses are not witch house. I have assumed the editor was new (editing since May 6) and pointed out the three core policies of Wikipedia (WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV), in case he wasn't aware, on my talk page. All I received in reply was a warning and the threat of a report to admin. I tried to make myself clear to him, but it looks like I've failed. Could someone weigh in on this small issue? Would appreciate it. HrZ (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I dropped an edit warring warning on their talk page as they're up to 3 reverts already. You're also up to 3 reverts so please stop reverting each other. I also find it ironic that he pointed out your spelling errors when he made an error himself. He may also have a conflict on interest seeing as he's apparently the owner of a label. Beyond the edit warring, this is really a content dispute and would be better taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Blackmane, I was not removing sourced content, I removed a music genre label. The criteria of labeling a genre is not the same as using a source in a description. I have adequately sourced the definition in the genre and have provided an article that accurately traces the origins of the genre. The issue is that a certain beat-form is the defining element of all witch house music. The band has no material that fits the paradigm. I can give you access to more articles if you'd like or access to an entire forum where all the artists from the genre converse. In addition, the user known as HrZ seems not to know that the articles he's using were long ago found to be in error, indicating he has no further knowledge of the genre (beyond the articles he's using as sources). I will gladly give you the means to connect with any number of writers who have covered the genre in depth, the issue is not about a personal conflict, it is about showing respect to a genre and not allowing for the corporate misuse and abuse of a term to promote a mainstream artist who has nothing to do with the genre. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

At best? Listen man, there are a bunch of people who have no real or defined knowledge of the genre or the music from it, posting poorly researched articles willy nilly that disrespect the genre and have a negative impact on the public perception of the genre. There's a wikipedia editing group that is actually specifically supposed to oversee problem definitions for genres, but none of you have handled the procedure correctly, by getting them involved. I'll rectify that on Monday. Baku Shad-do (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you were removing sourced content. You just don't like the source. Also, you did not add any source to support the genre you replaced it with. I also note that you have not participated in the discussion on the Talk page about the genre, so you have no reasonable basis for unilaterally altering the article. You've also been editing the Witch house (music genre) article, even though, just as with the band article, you have a clear conflict of interest (I've placed tags on both articles). The genre article is a mess, although it looks like it was a mess even before you edited it. I don't have time to review either article in depth at the moment, but, if only based on your conflict, I suggest you back off and stick to discussing the content in these articles on their Talk pages rather than directly editing them. You also have edit-warred on the genre article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism in an encyclopedic context is a legitimate sourced criticism, not intentional defamation of a genre. You can source defamation, but that does not make it legitimate criticism. You need to learn the difference between the two and yes there is a legal definition. I did provide sources, just because you don't like them doesn't mean you have the right to condescend. Although I do have a label that doesn't necessarily make me biased. I'm honest enough to say what my connection is, yes I'm involved in the scene, but odds are both you and the other poster are as well, hence your vehemence that you're right. Your lack of disclosure of your relation to the scene points to the likelihood that you have a biased agenda, whether it be direct or indirect. Let's get an actual administrator involved. Baku Shad-do (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You would like an administrator to weigh in? Sure. You (Baku Shad-do) are edit warring, removing content that is verified by a reliable source. Your only defense for doing so is your own original research that the band simply isn't in that genre, despite the fact that the source says it is. I do see some concern on the article's talk page that this source may not be reliable; if this is the case, then the information should be removed. If, however, the source is reliable, it should be re-added. Wikipedia does not rely upon the personal analysis of its editors for information, including for characterizing the genre of a particular artist. Note that if you had an additional reliable source stating that they are not witch house, then I would recommend taking it out of the infobox and discussing the two competing sides in the text proper; you, however, have not produced such a source.

So, in short, the editors should figure out if that meets WP:RS (try WP:RSN if you're not sure), and, if it does, feel free to re-add it, and it should be removed only if counter-sources are found. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pitchfork's reliability has come into question on occassion, though I am unsure wither this is down to a few articles on the site or the site itself. However, there was a discussion on this genre before and User:Fezmar9 posted two more sources labelling the band witch house: "Actually, the issue is much larger than that since other reliable sources see Crosses as witch house such as The New Zealand Herald and Forbes—the latter of which even acknowledges that the term originated as a joke, but has legitimate applications today." Baku Shad-do has finally taking to the article talk page, my reply was very similar to yours (Qwyrxian), that he should provide sources stating that they are not witch house and any questions of reliability of the sources to be taking to WP:RSN. Also, is there any chance that someone could revert back to the sourced version until discussions are done? Currently, the version has an unsourced genre added by Baku Shad-do. HrZ (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Original research? Listen, this is no insult to your credibility, but I owned one of the original three labels in the genre, I am one of the people who helped define the term, which doesn't make me biased it makes me a legitimate direct source. Baku Shad-do (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

At best, it makes you an expert, and although experts can make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, they must comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which you fail to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

At best? That's more than a little bit insulting. Listen man, there are a number of people with no real knowledge of the genre, outside of reading a few articles, who are posting poorly researched and factually erroneous articles willy nilly that disrespect the genre and negatively affect the public perception of it (that is not the purpose of Wikipedia). Wikipedia has a proper and specific procedure for problem articles surrounding music genres, which I can plainly see hasn't even been observed by anyone, including the admins here. There is a Wikipedia music genre editing project that is supposed to deal with such specific issues, such as correcting problem edits for all genres. I'll make sure they get involved by Monday. Baku Shad-do (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This editor has now started yet another conversation about this where they admit to possibly recruiting on an outside forum. [32]. Ridernyc (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely I will, I plan to share all of these conversations with the members of the genre, that way they can see why their genre is being poorly defined and misrepresented. If you'll carefully read at the bottom of the page, Wikipedia has granted the right to share its contents, given that they are properly cited, by their Creative Commons licensing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baku Shad-do (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 

why is wikipedia blue, ugly, and foul at the moment?

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

---

I see a poor horrific looking blue style sheet all over. Who broke what? 76.121.23.59 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a bug in the latest version of Google Chrome that shows a blue background if the browser zoom level is set below 100%. Reset the zoom to 100% with Ctrl+0 or adjust it with Ctrl++ and Ctrl+-. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Articles have big blue stars next to them, strange things are bolded...what's going on? --Blake Burba (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop using Google Chrome. I can't remember what caused it, but the latest version of MediaWiki isn't Chrome-friendly. If you go to the help desk, people will be able to point you to a more detailed explanation. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Within Chrome, you can also use the IETab extension, and configure it to use the IE engine to render wikipedia.org instead of Chrome's engine. Note: Chrome is rendering fine for me, at this point. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Users at WP:VPT are currently abusing MediaWiki_talk:Common.css in an attempt to circumvent discussing proposed changes to visual design adequately with the community. Fun css edit wars. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I saw the thread title and was going to answer "What do you mean, it's like that all the time", but then I realized I hadn't noticed the word "blue". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, "blue" is an old-fashioned term for "vulgar or obscene", so your premise still works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm using Safari, both iOS version and Mac version and I'm having the same problem. Its not Chrome.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • It is actually a huge mess of a badly implimented user interface change. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist - bold letter article titles.21. Roger (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Chrome and everything looks fine, except the new bolding and for awhile hideous green stars. Heiro 00:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Article names on watch list are bold-face until you go to the article. That's how it already works on Commons. Dunno if that's what they were intending, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I only saw one instance that had the "stars" shown before the article names. That was on my iPhone about an hour and a half ago. Other than that, its only the BIG BLUE BOLD that I have seen since.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm on Chrome and I saw the watchlist bolding, but other than that no problems. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• It appears by now that we need an administrator to step in and deal with the problem of failure to abide by consensus around this user-interface change. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• I actually agree with this. And can someone stop the Helpful Pixie bot that's on a rampage and lighting up a horribly colored page to a nausea inducing point. Please? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The original poster is an IP and unregistered users don't have watchlists. The IP's description sounds like the Google Chrome bug with blue background (screenshot) when browser zoom level is below 100% in the default Vector skin. See bugzilla:34551 and http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=113711. Most of the above replies are about an unrelated issue with the appearance of watchlists for registered users. This issue is discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist - bold letter article titles.21. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Administrator action required against WP:VPT editors over failure to adhere to consensus

Resolved

 – default bolding has reverted while the community is discussing this

As mentioned, and seconded above. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What action is needed? Looking at your earlier comment regarding MediaWiki_talk:Common.css, the only user I see posting there, at the time of the comment, was you? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:VPT and other related pages today have had a large storm of user complaint against a MediaWiki implementation change. Nobody has clearly taken responsibility for this change which has inflicted a major User Interface change against the interests of a preponderance of users. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No witchhunt admin action is needed as what was seemingly consensus was followed. An early post to the VPT thread points to the discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_83#Enable_.22Show_changes_since_last_visit.22_on_watchlist. The change has been reverted after more input was given. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Correction: The "stars" change was reverted. The bolding is still in effect (I had modified my common.css file to remove it). Whatever the case, discussion is currently taking place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? Holding forth 19 support votes in a limited domain from December, in a topic heading not describing key UI changes and, refusing to revert this with a snow grade community level of outrage. How is this not a conduct issue? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Who do you want blocked? And for what reason? What pages do you want deleted? And for what reason? What pages do you want protected? And for what reason? If you can't answer these basic questions, this is not an admin issue. Just name names, and explain why the admin tools need to be used, and we'll make some judgements. If you don't have a specific, well-justified reason for an admin to use their tools, it isn't an administrator issue and the problem needs to be solved in another forum. --Jayron32 04:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur; no admin action is needed here. MediaWiki folk might well need to pay better attention to avoid failures to communicate, but that's not something to be blocked, protected, or to get anything more than a healthy-sized {{trout}}. I'm still befuddled by the MediaWiki_talk:Common.css thing though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

Might want to keep an eye on and possibly protect this page. He recently fell ill at a conference and there are rumors circulating that he died. I just reverted to cases of vandalism to the page about this. WTF? (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Requests for page protection is that away. I've already requested the standard 72 hour semi-protect for BLP death rumors. Hasteur (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The semiprotection is not needed, and I think the "death" edit was someone playing a prank (I didn't notice any actual death rumors). According to the FSF, Stallman was treated in a hospital and discharged from it.[33] 66.127.55.46 (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for editor Richard Daft

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_proposal_for_editor_Richard_Daft

 – Nobody Ent 12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

block needed for BLP vandal

I didn't take this to AIV because there were no warnings. However This edit [34] by this user OmicronSquadLeader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) requires a block even absent of warnings. Will notify user promptly.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 12 hours (previously clean block log, or would have been for longer.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a note for Kim, but to expand, after the block a second account, Scientivore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reinstuted the same edit. I'm not sure if it was coincidence, sleeper socks, or what may be the most likely, that someone has gotten multiple comprimised accounts under their control.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the second one as well. It's odd, both accounts have no previous edits like this in their histories and they don't have much in common except that they have made reltively few edits. The first one has been mainly lego and Dr Who articles, the second a wider range (but this was the first edit in over a year...) I'll be AFK for a while soon, so if others could keep an eye out that would be good. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The two accounts are unrelated, and I can't see anything that suggests OmicronSquadLeader is compromised. Perhaps he just really detests Mitt Romney. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Junior Achievement

Could someone take a look at this article for me. An editor, with a very clear COI, keeps on inserting text that is, in my opinion overly-promotional. The editor seems to be under several misconceptions about Wikipedia having made statements like "We manage our brand very carefully and would not want our Wikipedia page content created by someone outside Junior Achievement" (see the article talk page for more). There seems to be a clear failure to listen and I think admin action of some sort may now may be appropriate but I'm too involved now. Dpmuk (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• That is one hot mess. I reverted. Dpmuk, there are three relatively fresh accounts in there: I think maybe you should start an SPI. I've left an "only warning" for the most recent COI editor--they've been aware of this since January yet they persist in guarding their brand, and turning the article into promotion. I agree that a block is in order, but I'd prefer someone else to look at this as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've left a friendly, informative message at User talk:Sbell1964co, so at this point I believe the ball is in their court. They cannot claim ignorance of Wikipedia's policies on this any more. Let us see where this goes before taking any action. Hopefully, the message I left will get the point accross, if it doesn't we can only assume a willful disregard for Wikipedia's standards. I say wait for the next move, however, before deciding to take further action. --Jayron32 19:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the discussion on the article's talk page where both Moonriddengirl and I mentioned WP:COI and which they must have seen (as they've replied to it) I don't think they were able to claim ignorance before today's events.
  • As for the WP:SPI idea I'm not sure this would serve a useful purpose as we already know they work for the same organisation and any other links between them could also plausibly be explained by this. Dpmuk (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, but at my place of work individual computers (I think) have individual IPs. That could point at more than just being colleagues. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Could be multiple private IP's sharing a pool of public IP's though. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • I feel the situation might be salvageable. I've offered to help if they agree to cease article-space edits. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Diff Delete

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

---

Can an administrator please delete this diff? it's a bit crude and I see no good reason for it to stay visible. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 20:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done ‑Scottywong| confess _ 21:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Greg L

DuLithgow (talk · contribs) apparently proposed an article started by Greg L (talk · contribs) for deletion. Greg responded to the nomination with rather severe personal attacks at his user talk. Greg has already been warned by Arbcom about his incivility at Wikipedia:ARBDATE#Greg_L_has_been_incivil and has been blocked for incivility and other disruption in the past. Since I've been involved with him in the past, I've brought the matter here for other administrators to handle, if they see the need for action. MBisanz ^talk 20:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support relatively short civility block. 48-72 hours. Unless there is some evidence that he is just having a bad day or something, in which case I'd AGF and give him a warning. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 21:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

His response to the ANI notification said it all. He'll be able to enjoy his weekend Wikipedia-free (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that Talk:Cobalt_(CAD_program)#Multiple_issues (and elsewhere on the talk) contains a notability discussion, and DuLithgow has been involved in many prior skirmishs on this page. I'm hardly a fan of GregL, but I have to agree that DuLithgow WP:PRODing the article looks like a very bad faith action to take. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad-faith nominations still don't deserve the harsh personal attacks left on the talk page. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

True, but blatantly baiting people should be blockable just like personal attacks. Both are unacceptable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I was too quick to WP:PROD as I was just tired of covering the same ground with GregL and being abused for pointing out that there is a problem with sources and/or notability on that article. The personal attack simply serves to strengthen my opinion that GregL in this instance is more interesting in defending his position than improving the state of the article to the level I'm requesting. Although I try to keep abreast of many products on the CAD market (one reason why I try to maintain List of computer-aided design editors) I can't be expected to find good references for him. As can be seen from the tag which is on the page now the problems go back a few years. Good to know that people keep an eye on this kind of thing. I apologise for reacting out of frustration. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Gah. Good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Indefing of User:Samofi

I'd like to have Samofi's case reviewed by the admins who have been involved in the whole affair, particularly User:Ironholds and User:AGK. But first and foremost I'd like point out that I'm NOT a fan of Samofi (far from it) and don't think that the month-long ban for the violation of his topic ban should be lifted. In fact I'm still convinced that Samofi's pushing his agenda (and luck :P) too much. Yet when reviewing the alleged sockpuppet's (meatpuppet's?) activity it became obvious to me that he can't be Samofi.

The fate of the sockpuppet in question (User:Savneli) is an interesting one indeed. First an SPI has been started against it by Nmate for User:Iaaasi. Unfortunately I've realized early on that Nmate was completely wrong about this account (he seems to have this tendency to see Iaaasi behind every hostile user/sock, while in fact most non-Hungarian editors editing Hungarians-related articles hate him, especially Slovaks, Romanians and Serbs): firstly Iaaasi's a troll, which's becoming more and more apparent (it's particularly evident from his comments on his SPI page) so his edits are mostly made with the intention of trolling (and inserting pro-Romanian content every once in a while). When Iaaasi poses as a Slovak user, this is particularly evident: almost all of his edits show signs of trolling meant to annoy Hungarian editors (especially Nmate of course). Moreover Iaaasi never seems to be able the resist the temptation of editing articles related to Romania too (especially Transylvania, where he has another opportunity of trolling Hungarian editors). Savneli's edits not only don't follow this pattern, but in his last edits completely break it: Savneli's edits consist exclusively of removal of Hungarian content (especially town names) and/or replacing them with their Slovak counterparts, asserting some historical persons' Slovak identity (IDK if Iaaasi ever did that) or adding a "famous Slovak" to an article of a town in Slovakia with predominantly Hungarian population ([35]), which Iaaasi would never do (since he lacks the necessary background information and lingual knowledge for that). So the gist of Savneli's edits point to a Slovak editor. I don't know when did Ironholds' and AGK's attention turn to Samofi, but since both Savneli and IndoEuropean1988 (a fairly blatant sock of Iaaasi) have been banned by Ironholds (and I haven't found any public records of AGK and Ironholds discussing this), I can only assume that Samofi came into the picture only later.

Yesterday I took the time of performing a more thorough investigation regarding Savneli, and that's when I figured out the REAL user who's behind it. There were two clues that led to this: his editing pattern(s) and his last two edits (the rest are reinsertion of his patent nonsense into Nmate's talk page hence they don't count). The first clue was the fact that all of Savneli's edits were either minor edits, replacement of Hungarian town names with their Slovak counterparts or reverts, with no talk page entries at all. This is in great contrast with both Iaaasi and Samofi who have made numerous talk page entries too and their English proficiency is well-known (and obviously on a fairly decent level, especially for Iaaasi). The greatest eye opener though was the text about a certain "Prof. Cavalli", because I knew that I've seen this text before. After a while I've realized that the first time I've seen it it was actually in Slovak. And guess who posted it on my talk page? None other than User:Bizovne himself (the IP account has been revealed to be used by Bizovne at the time)! So then I've taken a closer look at the rant (about Cavalli and Hungarian genes) and realized that it's basically a snippet of the translation I've made of my conversation with him (even with all the mistakes I've left in out of laziness).

So, the "executive summary" of the text above (for ADHD types :P): User:Savneli, which first been suspected to be User:Iaaasi's, then User:Samofi's sock, is in fact User:Bizovne's sock. Hence the indef ban of Samofi issued by User:AGK should be lifted. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a {{checkuserblock}} and can't be reversed by an administrator unless they have CU access themselves. I will re-check my results, and ask another checkuser to look again if I remain of the same opinion about the technical link between the accounts.

Were you e-mailed by Samofi? (I was.) AGK [•] 22:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No. In fact I'm not in contact with Samofi at all (au contraire - we have quite a few grave disagreements and he's even complained about me in a previous ANI report). And I'm quite surprised that CU has pointed to Samofi, since this editor's editing pattern just doesn't match that of Samofi. On the other hand it matches Bizovne's behavior quite well. As for geolocation, Slovakia's geolocation data is notoriously bad (basically only users of Bratislava and maybe Kosice and other notable cities get geolocated correctly, the rest gets either geolocated to the closest city, or Bratislava, or their geolocation's completely off), so even if that would've matched Samofi with Savneli, it isn't of much use. Sure, I can't argue with CU if it found some matching IPs (especially within the same time frame), but I think that it's highly unprobable that the Savneli=Samofi. -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not know if Samofi is still editing Wikipedia under sock-accounts, however , I know about him that he is not a trustworthy person; no matter what he says. Once already he stated that he did not use sockpuppets :[36], and it came to light that User:CsabaBabba was a sockpuppet of him. But of course it is possible that Savneli was Bizovne.--Nmate (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but we can still agree on the fact that it wasn't Iaaasi, right? :P -- CoolKoon (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I explicitly ruled out Samofit an Iaaasi sock. (Also, I have replied to you on my talk page concerning the fact that you took this block directly to ANI without first taking it up with me. Long-standing convention, the instructions in the header, and good manners would have you consult an editor about a problem with some action or another of theirs before hauling them to ANI.) AGK [•] 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone with OTRS access please sort this out for me

Willys (on wheels)

Someone is keeping a source hidden with a copyvio template until someone with OTRS sorts it out, and I understand OTRS can take a month! The email I used is eggWILLYcentricWILLYwikiWILLY@gmailWILLY.com (without any WILLYs) and I sent it to permissions-WILLYcommonsWILLY@wikimediaWILLY.org (similar situation with the WILLYs) - which was arguably the wrong address to send it to, but it is an OTRS email. Info at s:Talk:Statement_of_Eric_Rudolph - because someone is inisiting on keeping it copyvio'd until some OTRS lady or gent verifies this case, I think this is more urgent than the usual case (most cases of course are accessibly until someone with OTRS verifies things) so please, please, please someone un-copyvio it, t'will be mere minutes of your time

Thanks in advance! Egg Centric 22:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Check your email. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied to permissionsWILLY@wikimedia.WILLYorg Egg Centric 23:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And responded again to your reply to that. (Bet this is keeping lurkers on the edges of their seats!) Egg Centric 00:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is "stop playing with your willy" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Willies everywhere. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I made another reply ya'know. Willy-tastic! Egg Centric 01:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

... on wheels.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WoW! Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Did Willy remember to pay his Bill? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Emery/Weiner School

There are repeated instances of vandalism going on with The Emery/Weiner School's wikipedia entry. And User:Darry2385 keeps reverting my corrections to the page back to the vandalized versions. I don't understand how to use usertalk, but I need to know how to get this editing person to stop reverting the page back to vandalism. If there is a way to revert the page back to long before the vandalism began, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.53.58 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The changes are not vandalism. For one thing, your changes were written in the first person and thus in improper tone, so the reverts were correct. I suggest discussing the situation at Talk:The Emery/Weiner School. —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

…Though there was some earlier vandalism embedded in the page. I've rolled all the way back to 24 April to clear it. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Query

This is rather general: what do I do when I suspect sockpuppet activity from multiple anonymous IPs, none of which necessarily link to a registered username? Do I just go to the vandalism noticeboard? Thanks in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• SPIs won't link accounts to IPs, so that's not helpful--"link to a ... username" does not exist, in a way, and the term "sockpuppet" doesn't really apply either if it's not "linked", however one defines it. AIV is probably best, with some explanation: WP:DUCK-ness will be assessed by the admin on duty. Semi-protection is often in option if it concerns one or not many more articles. I can look into it, if you like. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I have often reported IPs to SPI, and many have been blocked for sockpuppetry. CheckUser will not link IPs, but that is no reason not to request a standard sockpuppet investigation. RolandR (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, sure, but the question was (I think) about the linking, which won't be done via CU. Admins there can of course decide to block based on behavior. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please. If my response is not clear (and I can see how that might be the case) it's because the question seems a bit muddled to me, and without specifics I can't be more precise. Thanks Roland, Drmies (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be on a better wifi connection tomorrow, so I'll collect the necessary data and submit it. Thanks everyone. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

British Virgin Islands national football team's Current Squad section tampered

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

---

I'm here to report that one of the sections of the British Virgin Islands national football team has been tampered by a number of unknown users I have yet to acknowledge, and I am unable to make any reverts because the tampered section somehow remained. It would be helpful if anyone would assist me on restoring the Current Squad section back in its current state and find the user responsible for tampering with the sections by adding fake date of births. JMBZ-12 (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem appears to stem from articles for the players.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Strike own mistake. Just appears to be a few little mistakes in copying info from the players' articles to the team's article and vice versa. If there are issues with the articles for these living people, possibly best to go the Biographies of living persons noticeboard to start with. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I will do so. Thank you. JMBZ-12 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Another RFPP backlog needs clearing

The usual, WP:RFPP is getting pretty backlogged with 38 requests currently pending. Most are recent but a few are two or more days old so should be dealt with quickly. tutterMouse (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This problem could be alleviated if there were more active admins. But since becoming an admin requires running through a gauntlet of current malcontents and future banned users, the number of admins is understandably small. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a bunch, but I didn't realise the sheer amount of the backlog. I have to be heading out now, so some other admin can take care of the rest. I did the most recent (i.e. the least likely to be stale). Maxim_(talk) 15:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I drop by there regularly, but I have to say that some editors are awfully quick to request protection, and these aren't always quick and easy decision. The "paperwork" is relatively easy because of the templates, but not every admin fills it out (that is, responds by leaving the proper template) and so sometimes it appears there is a backlog when there isn't. For me, the way every individual request is a template and editing it requires the whole page to load and reload is a bit irritating, especially on a not-so-fast connection and with a small screen. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:RhymeNero

Resolved

 – Indeffed for "Disruptive editing: competence questioned, disruptive nazi-apologism".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:RhymeNero is supposedly new 'contributor', who seems to be focussing almost exclusively on race-related topics. He/she has already broken WP:3RR on the Race and intelligence article, repeatedly removed sourced content from the Holocaust article, and attempted to start a discussion on Talk:Eastern Front (World War II) by suggesting that the Jews were responsible for the war. There is an open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev#Comments_by_other_users, where RhymeNero denies being Mikemikev, which may possibly be true, but given that the behaviour is essentially the same, I can see no reason why RhymeNero shouldn't be blocked anyway. Clearly here with an obnoxious agenda, rather than to make any useful contribution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This andythegrump person has been consistently harrassing me, cursing me, deleting my contributions, calling me all sorts of insults including 'fucking troll' and 'moron' and many other ignorant and stupid remarks without even trying to understand what I'm saying. He is simply a bigot who cannot stand that other people may have different views to his own. I did break the 3RR rule once as an honest mistake, being new here. I do not entirely focus on race topics as I've been on articles including movies and the second world war. I've never insinuated that Jews started the second world war and it is simply andythegrump who purposely misunderstood what I write because his only purpose in his constant stalking and harrassment of me is to silence me. If anyone should be disciplined it is andythegrump. He won't even let me discuss things in the talk sections of articles because he simply deletes them and every chance he gets he tries to attract the attention of mods just like he is doing here. Is this kind of behavior tolerated on this encyclopedia? RhymeNero (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I don't often defend Andy's intemperate tongue, but I gotta say if ever there was sufficient provocation, this is it. You're gonna be blocked, only question is how quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And your opinion is worthwhile why? RhymeNero (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

His opinion is worth more than one who believes there are sub species of humans. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Diff for the attempt to blame the Jews for WWII: [37]. Seems to think that Hermann Goering's opinion on the matter is somehow valid. And more to the point, this was on Talk:Eastern Front (World War II). RhymeNero was obviously looking to cause trouble, rather than offer anything of relevence, considering that he/she wasn't discussing the subject of the article. Note that I first came across RhymeNero regarding the "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy" (scientific paper) article, where he/she was attempting to argue that biological anthropologists aren't scientists. Bizarre... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you gone through high school Andythegrump? It's a historical article, hence we need to argue causes and motives. Why did Hitler exterminate the jews is a valid point of debate. I was trying to get at why the Nazis decided to suddenly gas the jews after an extensive period where they just left them in ghettos and concentration camps. As for Darkness Shines, if you don't believe in the existence of races then why don't you argue your original research with the actual scientists who posit the theory that they do exist. RhymeNero (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

RhymeZero, great to hear that you have "studied the conflict to some extent". You then wrote this: "The Nazi Hermann Goering himself stated that because the jews caused the war (how they did that is up to interpretation), and because hundreds of thousands of German troops had died in it, some kind of retaliation was needed against the Jewish people while beforehand, concentration camps, deportation and ghettos were seen as enough." Do you have any source for this claim, or did you just make it up because you thought it sounded good? 109.153.208.115 (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If given the chance to talk about the subject rather than have it immediately deleted by my stalker, Andythegrump, then I'd have posted the source indeed. RhymeNero (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly a waste of time attempting to reason with RhymeNero. Not here to help, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah clearly I'm not here to push your marxist points of view for the world Andy. RhymeNero (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We have to stop feeding RhymeNero. If an admin wants to block him now, fine. If an admin wants to wait the outcome of the SPI report, fine. If an admin wants to wait until he does something further, that's okay, too. In the meantime ...--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to the mix, RhymeNero was attempting to argue at File talk:Sarah Gore wedding.jpeg that not using copyright-violating images is 'censorship'. Doh! AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is hilarious, a brigade of marxist anti racists trying to get me blocked by any means necessary despite the fact that not only am I not racist, I am not even white. What sad little people. RhymeNero (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In spite of common misapprehensions it is in fact possible to be a racist without being white (and some allege also to be white without being a racist (the jury's still out on that one)). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If I suggested that the (unsourced) xenophobic propaganda of war criminal Hermann Goering was not worthy of serious debate in this encyclopaedia, would that make me part of this "brigade of marxist anti racists" or just a "sad little person". Or perhaps both? And what does the colour of your skin have to do with it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that it is unlikely that RhymeNero is a sock of Mikemikev - it is possible that he's a sock of someone else (but I doubt it). But it seems that there are at least a serious question of competence and of battleground mentality. Unless RhymeNero can demonstrate very quickly that he is in fact willing to collaborate, by using rational argumentation, commonly accepted sources, and to listen when people tell him that his assumptions or statements are wrong it doesn't seem to be in wikipedias interest to let him stick around. (Full disclosure: this user has been known to associate with jews, marxists and africans)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Will block. No room for Nazi-apologist trolling here, which the user's edits indicate is what is going on here. Either that or complete incompetence. Maunus, I'm a Trotskist--can we still hang? Drmies (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that tolerant...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Drmies. "Nazi-apologist troll..." I didn't see any warnings, and could you do an hyperlink or two for that charge. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Who's administering the admins?

Just discovered this thread, after being called a bigoted fool by RhymeNero yesterday (my time) in Talk:Race and intelligence (along with AndyTheGrump). I note that appropriate action has already been taken. Just thought I'd add some evidence in case of any appeals, etc. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, Okay I now see "Bigoted fools like Andy..." though it would've been nice if you hyperlinked it. And I disassociate myself from any comment like that. The appropriate action may have been taken, but it wasn't transparent enough in my view, and I'll risk still saying that there should have been a warning. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Vaoverland

Resolved

 – we don't do that anymore Nobody Ent 19:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Vaoverland, despite being dead is still considered a unblocked user. Previous policy has blocked dead people's accounts from Wikipedia. --Thebirdlover (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What "previous policy"? WP:DWG (a guideline) seems to cover it now. I don't see any evidence the account has been compromised.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of users such as User:Kwantus, User:Nataraja, User:Xulin, User:Rydel, User:Dalf, User:Baderimre were blocked because of their deaths. --Thebirdlover (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That helps. I looked at just the first in your list, and the basis for the block was WP:BLOCK. I then looked back at WP:BLOCK as of about the time of Kwantus's block, and there was a subsection called Death, which said: "The account(s) of users who are conclusively known to have died may be blocked indefinitely to prevent their use by other parties." That is no longer in the policy (I didn't check to see when it was removed or why). Thus, it would seem that we have only the guideline I cited. I should also note that the previous policy was stated in the permissive voice ("may be blocked").--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In the event that such an account is compromised then we would have to block. But without such a basis then I see no reason to block an account and, indeed, it seems rather disrespectful. TerriersFan (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Constant disruption by socks of User:Loveshirley

This user's sockpuppetry case needs attention as there are spam link and travel guide additions to articles on various Chinese cities every day. GotR ^Talk 18:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like it might be a job for the editfilter, or if they really perservere, the global site blocklist. -- The Anome (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding to the global site blocklist won't resolve the second part of the problem: consistent addition of peacock-y material that belongs in the travel guide. GotR ^Talk 21:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Socks need blocking

See UP & recent contribs hf24 21:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think I really care to look into this. I did remove some incorrect "confirmed and indef-blocked" templates from this one and from hf25. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've indeffed User:Hurricanefan24 and emailed the functionaries. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference desk troll

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but 84.61.181.19 is the current incarnation of the German reference desk troll. In the past weeks he has been trolling the various reference desks, redirects for creation (repeatedly, at length) and, rather pointy, requests for page protection when he created Talk:9Live HD, asked to have it protected from creation - and immediately recreated it after it was deleted. Twice. I have presented some more obviously trollish edits; others are much more subtle, some arguably even make good redirects, but he is a net drain on the project, and we cannot assume good faith with him. Blocking the IP won't stop him for good, but it has been stable for the past three weeks. Huon (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And I also speedy deleted the Talk:9Live HD page, as per the SD request, only to have it recreated once again. On the basis of the above, I have to say I support the request to block the IP. My one question would be whether we could clearly do so on the basis of it being used as a sock by an indefinitely banned user, as I myself didn't see on the Long term abuse page specific information regarding whether he had already been indefinitely banned. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The blueness of this place

When will this Chrome bug be fixed? For security reasons this is the browser I need to be using. 76.121.23.59 (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)